I say if gay coupling wear condoms there is no problem.
You call this lies and give examples of gay men living high risk lives.
You know what, STRAIGHT GUYS ALSO have a preference to go without a condom! I know, I am one! I don't though, because my dad had "that chat" about interest in girls and when I was 18 he made sure I had condoms and would use them. I can't imagine many dads having the equivalent gay conversation with their gay son, if they didn't completely disown them.
1. Most girls are not such enormous sluts that they'll have sex on the industrial scale that gay men do.
2. Fathers and mothers can realistically imagine inviting a girl's to dinner and getting to know her, inviting any member of the hedonistic bathhouse crowd to your house (or inviting the much older man that Tyler Clementi's roommate got weirded out about) is generally way outside the bounds of conversation as is, especially if that's the one that gave your son HIV.
You can't label someone who is sexually active with many different people as monogamous, to somehow prove that ALL gay monogamy is a farce! You could do the same thing with any straight guy or gal who sleeps around a lot.
The two categories are categorically different, because women are generally limiters for amount of sex one's able to have. Two guys have exponentially more testosterone and interest in sex than a man and a woman, therefore their sexual practices are categorically going to reflect the reality of impersonal orgies.
And you think it's some news flash that men are mainly interested in sex! Hold the fucking phone! Because I thought the reputation that every time the navy was in port all those pent up sailors were desperate to form a meaningful and committed relationship with the first willing woman they'd find... you know, sing to them, read them poetry while weeping then listen to them talk for FUCKING HOURS about every vapid part of their day OF COURSE BLOODY NOT!
Generally the Navy men had to run a train on ONE particularly sluttish woman, they rarely if ever had one female to every horndog.
All men, gay and straight are hugely motivated by the physicality of sex and they don't want to use condoms, but public health has changed them. The problem is you are looking at gays ins 1970's and early 1980's like when we first started using asbestos, an early and ignorant time that no longer exists.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.
So, a 24/7/365 bathhouse like Steamworks has carved a unique niche and serves a definable purpose in a gay neighborhood like Boystown - whether a lot of people like it or not, or condemn it for being the best it can be for the thing that it is.
Do guys have anonymous sex there? Yes. Are anonymous hookups in the year 2011 a particularly safe, sane, or smart thing to do? No. Will gay guys ever stop having anonymous sex and behaving like "lost boys" or "misfit toys" who refuse to grow up or take responsibility for their promiscuity? Again with the no. But, Steamworks (and relatively responsible bathhouses like it) attempt to create a safe atmosphere for the things to happen that would happen anyway - somewhere - if Steamworks didn't exist (but at least with Steamworks, there's free condoms everywhere and the guys are doing these things indoors in a drug-free environment where they won't be arrested).
To be blunt, the guys who spend a lot of time at Steamworks would be engaging in this activity in the alleys behind the bars, in parks, or in parked cars on the street if Steamworks didn't exist. Since there are free condoms readily available every few feet inside Steamworks (as prominently displayed as banks of slots in a casino), I have to imagine a good percentage of the guys frequenting this bathhouse are having safer sex than they would if there wasn't such a place and they were cruising the lakefront or abandoned buildings instead (which is what guys did in cities, unlike Chicago, that shut down their bathhouses in the early 80s when AIDS was discovered...which actually INCREASED infection rates in those cities while Chicago's bathhouses were kept open but forced to engage in non-stop safer sex education efforts).
The "gay community" has waged a solid PR effort in the last decade or so that attempts to ignore the seedier side of gay life, but it really and truly exists to this day.
Fathers talk with their sons about having relationship with girl, they tell them to use a condom, hell barbers on the weekend would chat about who the young guys asking what floozie they were dating and they'd give them "one for the weekend", a condom. It was integrated and institutionalised into life as a heterosexual to use a condom. And of course women were hugely pressurised into insisting on a condom for multitude of reasons.
But in the previous century this was NOT established with homosexual communities, gay people were ostracised from their homes and communities and with it any sort of advice on sexual health. Now it has been left up to gay organisations themselves and they HAVE pushed the message of condom use and it has worked.
Uh, whatever, dude. Don't exactly know what goes on in Britain, but despite the Advocate-guy going all EVERYONE MUST WEAR CONDOMS ALL THE TIME FOR US TO FORNICATE RANDOMLY SAFELY (note that he didn't say something like "STOP USING DRUGS THAT KILL YOUR JUDGMENT" or "DON'T HAVE SEX WITH ANONYMOUS STRANGERS!") most sex is more of a heat-of-the-moment deal. Which is why the whole institution of marriage and monogamy exists in the first place.
And why would homosexuals have addiction issues? Maybe their parents disowning them? Poor prospects of society recognising any of their relationships? Their religion saying their god will torture them for all eternity when they die, even though they haven't inherently hurt anyone? Maybe it's people like YOU calling them walking time bombs even if they take the same precautions and risks as straight couples.
Well, I don't know, let's ask Gawker:
What they don't want you to know is that many gay couples, though married, civilly unionized, or otherwise commonlaw are inviting guys over for threeways, playing around with other guys on the side, or engaged in all other sorts of sexual hijinks. Yes, straight people have "swingers" but it seems like there is a stronger bent of "non-traditional arrangements" among the gays. It might be because gay men are horny bastards and because we didn't have your fiendish and chaste preset relationship constructs until recently when straight people decided it was time to stop treating us like second class citizens. Yeah, we may be married, but that doesn't mean we're dead or conforming to your rules.
Yeah, they may be married, but that doesn't mean they're behaving in a manner that indicates I'd like to let them raise children, or represent the civilization built by and large by responsible heterosexual families, or insert their gay love stories into mass-market videogames so they don't feel left out (guess that makes me a HETERONORMATIVE CISGENDERED BIGOT!!!!1!!!1!!)
You give a great long spiel about the very earliest most irresponsible days of the gay community, where no care was taken to appropriately combat infections and diseases. Not as it is today. What you are saying is pre-AIDS the gay community didn't do enough to combat AIDS. Wow. And YOU use the Captain Picard facepalm? You devalue that jpeg.
Not devaluing it. Taking it back.
Realise back then there was the common myth that everything could be treated with vaccines and anti-biotics. A myth many people hold today with every infection except HIV.
Dude, STOP LIVING IN THE PAST! The AIDS crisis rocked the gay community to its core, Condoms are and have been an absolutely integral part of it ever since and you know the single biggest proof of this:
Today, there would not BE a gay community if they didn't widely and consistently use condoms!
HIV doesn't kill immediately, it kills slowly. Slowly enough for someone to live his debauched existence and die young after infecting scores of other confused young men, whose death sentence makes it far easier to co-opt into your hedonistic cult that derives its greatest pleasures from shitting on normal society.
If you say that the entire or even a significant part of the gay community is still regularly having unprotected sex, then there wouldn't be any more gay people around, they'd all have died from AIDS. Steven Fry would not be alive, nor would Ian MacKellen, nor John Barrowman, not Anderson Cooper, not Elton John nor Niel Patrick Harris.
Living proof that the Gay "community" has largely shaken up its attitudes and adopted the sexual-health practices that heterosexuals take for granted. They have largely grown out of the fledgeling days of the 1970's where there was not a huge demand for gay marriage, but THERE IS NOW! And you CANNOT keep living 40 years ago when it suit you!
Gawker says no, Grindr says no, Salon says no:
I had spent the last six hours at the Black Party, a giant gay event that takes place every year at Roseland Ballroom in Manhattan. Every March, thousands of shirtless men cram into the large concert venue in midtown to dance to world-famous house DJs, do lots of drugs and, once 3 a.m. rolls around, have public sex in various parts of the building. For three decades, the party has been a raunchy high point of the gay calendar in New York, and a throwback to the most hedonistic aspects of pre-AIDS gay culture. (This year's party will take place on Saturday, March 19.)
Leaving aside the fact that the "throwback" party is a gigantic public health hazard, the comments on the article by Salon's gays are even more hair-raising:
Well it's not for you and never was. BIG DEAL.
How old are you, dear?
I'm 64, and I've seen a lot of bad road, lost 3/4 of my nearest and dearest in the epidemic (the 90s was one long string of funerals for me) and remain (gasp!) HIV-
Guess I didn't "party" as hard as I thought I did. But chaque a son GOO.
As you claim to pursue monogamy (the weidest of all fetishes) the question remains WHY DID YOU GO?
...you went in to celebrate and embrace sex with the rest of your queer brethren, and you came out realizing that "progress" means that gays' relationship with sex will become more "straight."
Honey, you need more time with your therapist.
It's not the party, it's you
But you did have fun! You got to enjoy the sense of superiority and "normalcy" that you radiated as a tourist in the midst of all that depravity and all those gushing fluids and gushy orifices. There's not much difference between you and the guy with the funnel, after all; you're just wearing different masks!
Homsexuality is a mental illness that's exacerbated by societal acceptance.
Putting homosexuals into positions where they have power over children (bad enough) or teenagers (much worse) is an astoundingly bad idea.
Ostracism is the normal human response when confronted with actual examples of homosexual behavior, the only people who don't ostracize them are those who've been carefully trained to see them as 'just like you and me!' at a young age, this usually coincides with teaching them that hedonism is the only way to live.