Umm....

ElvenKnight's picture

a little while ago, I received a mass text message from a gay friend of mine; which read

"GMHC and SAGE hosting a candlelight vigil at 6PM, Trinity Church to honor those lost to AIDS"

I really hope he meant

" Remember Those Lost"........

Comments

Lol-taire's picture

Reader in this circle

Reader in this circle pause,
Although they died of just one cause
Remember that their lives were dense
With fine compacted difference.

In the words- sort of if I've remembered them right- of Thom Gunn.

'Honour' is a good word, to remember with affection, with sadness, lives that were dense with, fine compacted difference.

'Honour' is a fucking good word to remember those let down by their government when the crisis hit, who needn't necessarily have died, who died without the compassion or dignity or even the fucking healthcare they needed.

The Aids epidemic in America, and the global pandemic, is in so many ways political- when you even think about who does and doesn't get medicine and the response of governments.
That yes, honour is the word- not a passive remembering.

jeff's picture

Jeez...

If you're going to make a good point, at least spell honor properly ;-)

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Lol-taire's picture

tsk, tsk never can keep the

tsk, tsk never can keep the Colonials happy...

ElvenKnight's picture

I don't know..... i've been

I don't know.....

i've been to events honoring the lives of Jews who perished in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, however. i've never been to one which "honored" those who were murdered in Auschwitz......

Lol-taire's picture

I think 'to honour', in this

I think 'to honour', in this sense is really to mourn for people who were probably strangers to us and to remember with a purpose.

Remembering just by itself is passive and meaningless.

I know what you mean- but I don't think honour necessarily has to be attatched only to heroic death.

To honour those who died of Aids, is really to affirm that they're lives weren't dispossable and their deaths weren't shameful. And since there was- is still in many ways- such stigma attatched to the illness, I think we can spare a bit of honour.

jeff's picture

Hmm...

Well, yours adds more characters, and it is a text message...

Unless you really want to split hairs about HIV politics on World AIDS Day, at which point I'd have to conclude you are an abuse junkie and, since I don't enable junkies, I'd have to not reply further.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

ElvenKnight's picture

politics? get off it man,

that was about semantics.

jeff's picture

heh...

Not an unreasonable conclusion given your anal/masculine/effeminate history of late. ;-)

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Tophat's picture

Buuuuurn.

Well put, Jeff. I came to the same conclusion.

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

ElvenKnight's picture

.

You still haven't gotten over the anal sex thing?
I understand, anal sex is central to your identity as a gay man( its central to the identity of alot of gay men, apparently. )

Is it really that hard to accaot that someone might experience homosexuality differently than you have?

jeff's picture

It isn't central to my life...

I just don't need to define my identity by negating the things that don't personally resonate with me*. It holds up fine on its own.

Whether people experience life differently is less important than my lack of desire to see my life as better or worse as a result of how anyone else lives theirs.

*Except Sarah Palin and Twilight.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

ElvenKnight's picture

Anal sex is considere by

Anal sex is considere by many to be the DEFINATIVE act of gay sex which doesnt make any logical senxse(to me)

1) There is nothing uniquely homosexual about the act
2) there is nothing egalitarian about the act.
3) penetration exists so that procreation can occur. the biological reason for which human beings have sex organs is so that we can reproduce. Sure human beinngs have sex for pleasure, but that isnt the reason why we have them.
Erotically speaking, Gay men have more in common with gay women than they do with straight men.

jeff's picture

Well...

I actually don't have gay sex. I have sex. Because I'm gay, I have sex with men. Similarly, I don't go to gay bars. I go to bars. I happen to frequent bars frequented by other gay men. Things are typically only defined as gay by people who are outsiders.

I don't think I've asked anyone if they wanted to go out to a "gay bar" in the last decade.

As for your points:
1) True, but if two gay men do it...
2) I don't believe the outdated rubbish dom/sub, masc/fem stuff I think you're implying.
3) So?

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

ElvenKnight's picture

Erotically speaking, Gay men

Erotically speaking, Gay men have more in common with gay women than they do with straight men.
Gay women have no sexual interest in men, therefore they have no interest in penetrated, at least not by anything remotely phallic.
the quintessential sex act between two women is trabadism.

If gay women have little tio no interest in being penetrated it stands to reason that gay men should have no great desire to be penetrating.

Gay Women have tribadusm. Gsy men have frot.

jeff's picture

hehe...

I would call this pondering masturbatory, but I'm sure that would just spawn a whole new discussion for you...

I just don't know why you put reason over practice. Gay men have anal sex, and many gay woman use penetrative sex toys, you can't rationalize that away.

That said, you can never fuck or get fucked in your entire life, and if that's your thing, no one is stopping you.

---
"People who are happy are slugs... They do not move the human race forward."
-- Camille Paglia, on Oasis

Lol-taire's picture

You can't be serious. You

You can't be serious. You really aren't are you? Serious?

You are making fun of us.

Either that or you've been chatting to some mad '70s revenent of political lesbianism put out to pasture at sodding Greenham. Or an Ancient Greek vase.

ElvenKnight's picture

umm...

the zoom was fucked up on my computer last night when i typed all that...
hence all the typo's....

yes my idea's are pretty old-school.....

Lol-taire's picture

That's the point though,

That's the point though, isn't it? To you they're very much still ideas.

It's like being back at the convent school getting sex advice from Sister Patricia.

And if you don't want to take up it the arse, soldier- then don't. I don't fancy it much either. But you only sound ridiculous if you try to construct a philosophical system around it.

There is no 'quintescence' about this. I'm not a lesbian because I dislike penetration (where did you even get that from? who did you possibly ask?- and urgh I do resent you making me talk like the embarrassing bits from '70s liberationist tracts)- but because I always fall for women- horrible women as it happens, but that's not the point.

The point is it's not the 'acts' in themselves, it's the whole damn thing.

ElvenKnight's picture

.

"There is no 'quintescence' about this. I'm not a lesbian because I dislike penetration (where did you even get that from? who did you possibly ask?- "

Honestly, I had it figured the other way around, but yes I still made too many assumptions....

"The point is it's not the 'acts' in themselves, it's the whole damn thing."

Umm.... Yeah.... I think I can relate to that.

Nanook's picture

I always felt that sex was

I always felt that sex was something more than the superficial and was representative of allowing yourself to be vulnerable in front of another individual. And well, I think having someone inside you is letting yourself be pretty fucking (no pun intended) vulnerable.

Yessss! Don't we all just LOVE generalizations?! Know what else I love?! How you tried to knock down a generalization by using a different generalization. Oh, but it gets better! You compared a generalization to another generalization in hopes of making the counter-generalization even more effective! Excellent rhetoric!

/end sarcasm