That is not what he is doing at all. You are being moralistic. You are making assumptions and criticism you have NO place to be making.
Where Esprix chooses to put his dick and how he does it is none of our business. He never said, nor should we enquire where or what his dick or his partner’s dick went. He’s not being intellectually dishonest or slanderous. You are being a judgemental moron who should mind his own business.
You are turning into the Gladys Kravitz of the SDMB.
How the FUCK am I being moralistic when I have virtually no morals when it comes to sex at all? Huh?
God, the world has gone mad faster than I did, I never thought that would happen.
The world hasn’t gone mad, neither have you. You are just clueless, which is not surprising. Take a DEEP BREATH, reread your posts, and realize that you are one with your inner :wally
Assertion is not argument. Show me where I say anything about the morals of his sexual behavior. I DID say it was wrong to claim there was no risk when there was, but not once did I attack his actual behavior as being immoral, you must have me confused with another poster, PharmBoy maybe, I don’t know.
I know I’m going to regret this…Esprix has always been kind and polite to me and I respect him immensely. And I don’t care where the hell his dick goes (to use an established phrase) as long as it ain’t heading for my wife or myself.
But I think by starting the ‘I having so much sex…WOO WOO WOO’ thread he established his sex life as a point of discussion. I admit I didn’t want to discuss it (nor have I) but it does move it into the realm of topics.
Now, if I might make a suggestion, let’s kill this damn thread and move on with our lives? I don’t think anything good can come of it.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Jonathan Chance
He’s right, Hastur - all of this came out of the can of worms I opened. Sadly, I simply didn’t expect to get any homophobic feedback (prudish, perhaps, but not AIDS-related).
Now anybody else who isn’t interested can just skip over all this and go read something more interesting in GD. 
Badtz, I think I finally pinpointed the problem. In the “Hey Pharm Boy” thread, The Ryan, taking exception to oldscratch starting the thread in the first place, wrote:
He, like you, stated I was “ignoring safe sex advice.” I responded:
And at that point you chimed in with:
I did not adequately respond to this in that thread, but rather started this thread. Allow me to respond now.
I believe there is a key phrase being misread here, so let me highlight it in my response:
Ryan, IMHO, seemed to be implying that no matter what there definitively would be negative consequences to my actions; i.e., no matter how safe I was, I would contract AIDS. After all these threads, surely we both can agree that the chances of this are miniscule (which I am comfortable with, and you would not be).
I could think of none because, statistically, there won’t be any, there haven’t been any, and there never will be any (for me).
And to the point of “safe sex advice,” it isn’t “don’t have sex with anyone,” and it isn’t “don’t have sex with a lot of people.” It’s “have sex safely and responsibly.” I’ve never denied the fact that any sex involves risk, but when I feel my risk is approaching zero, then I’m comfortable with that. You’re not. Your point is made. Let’s move on.
And to the point of your being a bigot, I wanted to point out that in that thread you also said:
Now there’s a lot of implied statements there that maybe you’re not seeing:
[ul][li]Comparing diseases is a bad thing, and really does make you look like a bigot (of the “some of my best friends…” variety), particularly since AIDS is still so closely linked with the gay community. All the diseases you mention are important, and all impact huge portions of the American public. I, personally, am content to let the government decide which diseases get which funding. And since my life and my sex life do not directly impact AIDS funding, I don’t even know why it got brought up in the first place.[/li]
[li]“Promiscuous people should try monogamy.” Who says that’s not my ultimate goal? I don’t believe you or anyone else asked. I merely gave you one slice of one part of one small timeframe of my life - I don’t believe my eventual goals were ever discussed. There’s a lot of assumption going on there (much like the assumption over exactly how safe I’m being). If you have questions, feel free to ask for the answers.[/li]
[li]"… or at least use condoms and get tested frequently." I do that, and much, much more. I didn’t realize that my sex life would be the lynchpin of the entire AIDS epidemic, as it seems you would have me stop having sex with more than one person before the contagion continues.[/li]
[li]Yes, people who are afraid of cancer can do things to minimize their risks. Let’s repeat that phrase - minimize their risks. People may still get cancer. Similarly, I’m minimizing my risks to the level with which I am comfortable by practicing safe sex. In both cases, there is no way to minimize your risk to zero. I am comfortable with my sex life; someone else may be comfortable eating more whole grains. It’s all about comfort levels.[/ul][/li]
You’re putting all your objectionable emphasis on the number of partners rather than on what is done with those partners - this is why people are labelling you judgemental. And that’s not being judgemental myself, but, like you, just pointing out the obvious. (Well, that and your delivery is off - as was also pointed out, how something is said is just as important as what is actually being said.)
Can we all just move on now?
Esprix
I agree there have been several communication problems in this thread…your main point for me being a bigot is the post re: AIDS spending…I already apologized for that, I misread something PharmBoy posted, thought he was saying you were complaining about lack of AIDS funding in another thread. But even though it turns out there was no reason for me to say that, I don’t think it made me a bigot…
For one thing, I don’t associate AIDS with homosexuality, don’t think of it as a ‘gay disease’ and never did, when I was in middle school and we first started hearing about it, I knew it was going to be just as big of a health problem for straights as gays (I did a lot of speculating about the future). Comparing AIDS to other diseases and not seeing it as important should not be seen as bigotry towards gays. You may not like to compare diseases, I think we should. I can agree to disagree on that. It doesn’t effect many people (proportionally), we know how it is transmitted and how to stop it’s transmission.
Who are you quoting? I said “IV drug users can stop sharing needles, promiscuous people can try monogamy, or at least use condoms and get tested frequently. People who are afraid of cancer can do things to reduce their chances, but there is no way to reduce your chance of getting it to 0, unlike AIDS.”
I never said anybody SHOULD try anything. I was listing ways to reduce your danger of getting AIDS, while trying to explain why I felt AIDS research was less important than cancer research. If someone was complaining about their bad gas mileage and was wanting the government to spend money on devising more fuel efficient cars and I said ‘You could try limiting your speed to 50 MPH and checking your tire pressure regularly’, that would not be the same as me saying ‘It’s morally wrong to drive over 50’.
Again, I was not trying to tell anyone what to do, just giving examples of what can be done. And I never said ‘Esprix could (or should) use condoms and get tested frequently’. When I said ‘you’, it was not directed towards you specifically.
Now, back to the statement that made me step in…
Let’s break this down - I know now you didn’t mean what it sounded like you were saying, and suspected it then. But the way you worded it, you clearly said there were no consequences.
“Both are inaccurate” - after saying that I was implying there will be consequences, and that you were oblivious to being responsible for them. I took that to mean you were disagreeing with both. That there are no consequences. I did not say that there WOULD be consequences, as in every time you have sex something bad would happen, and I don’t see how you can see I was implying that rather ridiculous position.
And even though you did admit there is a risk involved, you still say things like this (re: negative consequences of sex)…
My main point of contention was that there ARE chances, the odds may be for you, but sometimes people are unlucky. I got the impression that you were ignoring negative consequences because the odds were against them…one of my few statements that was definitely along the lines of ‘Thou shalt’ was that people should not ignore the possibility of bad things happening, even if they take steps to reduce those odds. I do a number of things to minimize my chances of getting killed, but I still pay for life insurance.
What really got me pissed over this thread wasn’t the disagreements or the stubborness of certain participants, but the way it was assumed that I was trying to preach morality. I wasn’t, and tried to defend myself from that.
I says: I am not a bigot and not making moral statements, show me where I am doing that and I’ll admit it.
They says: Right here you implied this, and I take this to mean that.
I says: No, I did not imply this, this is what I meant (provides explanation that fits the quote better than the supposed hidden meaning).
They says: Keep lying to yourself, bigot.
FWIW…
when contraceptive failure rates are reported, it is per year, not per use. The 2% failure rate for condoms means that if a typical couple uses condoms for a year, there is a 2% chance of pregnancy resulting.
-Ben
Fine - we’ve both said our peace.
Mods, lock it up, if you please.
Esprix
You got it.