Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
[COMMENT: Here is an apparently British woman, or maybe an American abroad, telling it like it is. Where are the fathers who will protect their children? Where is the "Great Generation" today, who will become the spiritual warriors God has called them to be? Here is the email I sent back to her after getting this.
Dear Lisa Nolland,
I just received a copy of your article, "A Gay Success Story". Thank you for your honesty. I believe we in the West may have passed the tipping point, that restoration of a Judeo-Christian civilization (which I believe will happen) will come only after severe trouble, including violence. We here in America will probably have to fight again our Revolutionary War, this time against our own government.
The problem is not the so-called "liberals", it is the so-called "conservatives" who are incapable of standing up to speak the truth with grace. Obedient Christians will win the culture war. Our current crop of cowards will not.
Attached is an article which I think spells out the only strategy which can begin to turn the momentum around again toward sexual sanity -- forcing a discussion of the only issue which is relevant -- homosexual behavior in detail, and its consequences.
The "gay" success has come about because the conservative, Biblically orthodox leadership absolutely refuses to address that issue. I have been asking our Episcopal bishops here in America since 1988 to do so. They simply refuse. They will not do it. They are more in love with the Church than with the Lord of the Church.
Homosexual behavior is the only real item for which homosexual advocates really want approval. Homosexuality is nothing without their sexual behavior. But they get us off on every rabbit trail (love, marriage, inclusiveness, etc.) to keep us off the real issue -- their behavior.
If we allow the enemy to define the terms of the debate, if we never ask for clarity on what they really want, we can expect to continue to lose the public discussion. And behind that is an absolute and vicious tyranny. But, with a Godly strategy, speaking the truth in love, they are extremely vulnerable. They cannot survive an open discussion based on truth and love.
You might be interested in a book, "Homosexuality: Good & Right in the Eyes of God? - the Wedding of Truth to Compassion and Reason to Revelation", at Winning the Sexuality Wars and you can read my bio at http://theroadtoemmaus.org/EM/Fox/0EFox.htm The book is available in Britain.
We are in a winnable war because all the evidence is on the side of Biblical sexuality, all of it. We have all the live ammunition. The other side has only blanks. But they are at least shooting and making a big noise which scares the daylights out of the conservatives. Our side is not shooting. that is why we are losing. We do not know how to handle evidence and force an open, honest discussion. The idea petrifies most conservative leaders.
I am finding increasing numbers of young adults who want better, and who may become the Lord's new Gideon army. The turn around will happen, I hope in my lifetime.
I would be interested in your reactions to the attached article.
We will not lose this war if we allow God to direct our response. We must never allow the enemy to convince us that we are on the losing side, no matter what the circumstances look like. The power of God comes from beyond and beneath the circumstances.
Ascension Blessings, Earle Fox
the impact of present culture upon the church…
and where this will end.
I write this as some Americans are trying to convince other Americans that the Marriage Protection Amendment is a good idea, that it ‘saves’ the traditional family, that it is vital for public morality, social stability and so on. Of course, gay advocates (who may be gay or straight) give as good as they get and argue that what is being proposed here is the institutionalization of unjust systemic heterosexism and homophobia and the infringement of civil rights. I live in the UK, where we have recently approved a British semi-equivalent to gay marriage in the form of Civil Partnerships. We heard the arguments countless times; the outworking of the legislation is now beginning to surface in very worrying ways.
Back in the US, the committed of both sides do what they can to generate interest in and support for their respective causes. Many, however, simply pretend it is business as usual. Even moral and social conservatives, committed family people and Bible-based evangelicals drop below the radar on this one. Not that they are keen gay advocates, but they seem to have found themselves unable to defend their formerly-held traditional views of marriage and sexuality. At least they have gone silent. Why is this so?
Perhaps for them, this issue is simply too emotive and controversial. Those willing to brave the storm and go on record in defense of traditional views are often portrayed by the cultural/media elites as rigid, intolerant, etc. - that is, if they receive air time in the first place. For many, if one supports the Marriage Protection Amendment, one is seen to support the right-wing extreme. It is far safer, far less contentious, just to preach ‘the Gospel’ and confine one’s investments to positive, ‘feel good’, commonly-held beliefs and practices related to prayer, Bible study, Christian fellowship, personal witness and acts of charity, mission and so on. After all, unity is a Christian virtue! Undoubtedly other factors are present which undermine ‘hard-line’ Christian conviction as well. Those that come to mind include comments like ‘My lesbian daughter is far more caring, decent and civilized than most straight people I know’; ‘They have a gay gene, after all’; ‘Society is multicultural and diverse anyway, so why try to enforce a hetero code upon gay individuals?’; ‘God made them like that and loves them just as they are’; and ‘Look at our track record! When straights get their act together, then we can pass judgment’. The usual concerns about equality, justice, discrimination and oppression are expressed, too.
As gays are coming out - or have done so now, and that in droves (ever seen a gay pride event?) - the rest of us slink back into our Christian closets. Perhaps they won’t bother us if we don’t bother them. As far as I can discern, this is the modus operandi for many Christian individuals, leaders, churches and organizations in the US, the UK and other western countries today. What they don’t appear to realize is that they operate with Christian moral capital from the past which has reached a new nadir in recent years. If what little remains is not defended there will soon be nothing left at all. But they seem to pretend that this latest challenge does not exist. I imagine they pray for it to go away.
Decades of decline can be easily mapped. The churches - with a few exceptions - never properly responded to the fundamental challenges and issues raised by the moral and sexual revolution of the 60s. An earlier consensus in relation to Christian sexual morality, inclusive of such tricky issues as divorce and remarriage, began to be seriously eroded at that time and erosion has continued, indeed, its rate has recently accelerated. We are now in a situation where many even religiously-committed people who marry have previously cohabited, believing all the while that it is normal, completely acceptable Christian practice to do so. We have others who are unmarried and heterosexually active, and tick the ‘Christian’ box with no qualm of conscience. An entire sea change can be seen to have occurred by the 90s but few noticed. Now, we face the challenge of gay sex. And if the past is anything to go by, we may well lose here too.
Not only are we silent about gay sex, but the church as an institution but also at the local grassroots level has lost its nerve and almost gone silent on sex altogether, certainly in terms of putting forward an apologetic for a robust traditional sexual ethic. If you doubt me, ask yourself when you last heard a sermon on it. Yes, books are written for the Christian reading public and churches run courses on building strong marriages, rearing confident children and nurturing family life (safe, ‘feel-good’ topics). Even trickier financial issues are now discussed more openly in church circles. The presence of the above indicate progress and are all to the good. However, the public line, if it exists, is rarely if ever heard from up front on more contentious aspects of sexual morality. Have I missed something? I don’t think so.
Why is this? There are various reasons, but two immediately come to mind. First, there is the immense philosophical but also cultural and personal impact of post-modernism, Nietzsche and Foucault upon us all. There are intricate, highly complex matters here and it is not to my purpose to say much about them, but they have a powerful bearing, albeit a subtle, indirect one. Perhaps most important is the implicit affirmation of the individual as supreme, to all intents and purposes a human divinity. Autonomy is the most to-be-valued, valuable ‘good’. The immanent certainty here about the central importance of individual autonomy is in the subtexts of much we read, hear, participate in, conditioning us to respond in certain ways. And of course, it is fully congruent with our fallen human nature, which tends to Do Things My Way at the best of times. Such an ethos supports what the sexual revolution was trying to achieve, inclusive of gay sex activity.
Immediate in its affect on Christian consciousness is a negative spin-off from the therapeutic movement which colours the atmosphere in which we ‘do’ church and connect Christian truth and reality with 24/7 life. Sin/ning is explained in terms of dysfunction, wound, need, addiction, obsession. God loves us – in fact, he couldn’t love us more! - and will help us with our problems. There is much that is congruent with biblical conviction within the therapeutic movement, but the paucity of clear, objective moral and theological content in the church context ensures a skewed, truncated Gospel. Moreover, because therapy only works if people actually want to ‘hear’ what is said, we seem unable to speak truthfully about matters which concern but, if discussed, may offend and make people feel bad. What people don’t want to hear about we feel we must not speak about. The great irony, of course, is that people of this generation feel very bad anyway, riddled with guilt, complexes and neuroses, saddled with histories of broken relationships and niggling reminders of skeletons in the closet. Never has less been said on ‘sin’ from the pulpit – try reading some sermons from other ages - nor have people felt as bad about themselves or been as damaged or miserable. Sadly, Christian leaders seem to labour under the misconception that one must not contribute to any sense of guilt. Indeed, we appear unable to ‘speak the truth in love’, which is the most effective mode of dealing positively and honestly with our guilt, our sin, our ‘stuff’. This is how God deals with us. And we are losing the gay debate in part because of this reticence.
There are other pressures to be silent and conform present now in society, but also, more subtly, in the church. There is the threat of legal censure, disciplinary action, loss of employment etc. which the more vocal of the traditionalists have now experienced. Indeed, as Maggie Gallagher warns, gay activists (the nice ones) are telling her that the best is yet to come, that their crusade has only just begun. And for that, see her excellent article, ‘Banned in Boston’, The Weekly Standard, May 2006. In fact, if sexual ‘orientation’ is included under the ‘victim’ umbrella, along with gender, race, ethnicity and so on as an entity which needs state affirmation, fostering and protection, then we will be viewed by the average person on the street as we presently see members of the KKK in their tall white hats. And that is no exaggeration. If you doubt this, read the literature. Go onto gay websites. Theirs is the immanent certainty of the committed; they brook no opposition. Why should they? They have the support of many in places of power in the government, the media, educational and academic realms. Even religious institutions are either colluding, capitulating or in denial. Now is a good time to be gay. Writing in the Sunday Times, Paul Flynn muses, ‘Sometimes it truly seems as if the whole country has turned pink. The long and short of all this is that the word “gay” has come to be associated with the word “success” in Britain.’
If the gay crusade accomplishes all it hopes - and there is reason to think it might - then what are we looking at in terms of the future? I believe there are two very important outcomes which have thus far not been addressed. The first has to do with all the other sexual minorities waiting in the wings. What about them? Their ‘angst’, their experiences of being isolated, rejected and harassed by the ignorant but dominant cultural and political mainstream, echo the rhetoric of the 70s when gays were just beginning to come out. I am sorry, for I know it grossly offends gays to be even remotely connected with at least some of these other advocacy groups. However, the latter make a strong case for applying to their own situation the logic which has advanced the gay cause so well. They will insist that the dots remain connected. As long as all are over the age of consent, willing participants and there is no undue ‘harm’ - the primary categories appealed to by Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the majority in relation to the court decision allowing adult group sex in a ‘Swinging’ Toronto club - we have no choice but to include those who have thus far been excluded. Surely their voice, their feelings, their practice, is as legitimate as any other. It may not be to our taste, we may think it’s horrible or disgusting (or whatever), but we have no right to say it’s wrong. Indeed, it’s wrong to say it’s wrong.
As is clear from their materials, these non-mainstream sexual groups are counting down the days until they too have their turn, their day in the sun. I am thinking here of polys and polygamists (there is a difference: polys are gay, bi, straight or whatever, and find that monogamy simply does not work for them); zoos and bestialists (the former tend to establish romantic relationships with certain animals, while the latter are more interested in generic sex with animals); ‘sexual alternative’ practitioners (‘polys’ (previously mentioned), ‘swingers’ – those into group sex/sex with strangers - and ‘SM’ – those into sadomasochism, leather and fetish and so forth); advocates of certain types of consensual incest; and, in a slightly different category, boylovers and girllovers, who insist they are not pedophiles or child molesters and deeply resent what they claim to be a perverted misrepresentation by the media. I give working definitions for the above; some of the web material I consulted offered slightly different definitions. Actually, this whole realm is a huge growth industry; I was amazed at how much I could find with minimal effort. For examples of recent articles and information on websites see footnote below.
Where we are headed here is to the abolition of the concept of ‘taboo’. A colleague informed me that he expects not just state neutrality but state protection of presently-held sexually-transgressive behaviours within the next two decades or so under the aegis of individual ‘rights’. Sexual coercion - e.g. rape - would still be frowned upon, but we are quickly losing all basis upon which to object to anything else. State protection will mean that no one will be allowed to express disapproval in public. Indeed, such views held even in private will be verboten; having them is Thought Crime. Countries like New Zealand already have legislation punishing Thought Crime. Human Rights Commissions – another growth industry in the west – will be the means to punish dissidents and ensure the obedience of the rest. And where then will the church be? And what will it say?
You might be thinking at this point that though the situation is grim, surely it is not that bad. At least such behaviour will not necessarily be in one’s face. After all, we still live in a somewhat civilized society. If as an adult I choose to remain uninvolved, if I don’t like that sort of ‘play’ [popular descriptor used on alternative websites], I can probably avoid it by having nothing to do with certain types of people, clubs, sites, neighbourhoods and so forth. And as an adult, you can. However, for your children and grandchildren, your nieces and nephews, the cute little girl or boy next door, the situation is very different. They will have no choice but to be informed about all sorts of matters you can avoid.
Why? Because they go to school and you don’t. Under the radar, schools have become prime sites for the promotion and advancement of the gay agenda. In what amounts to a massive social engineering project, gay rights have made enormous strides. How did it begin? The scenario was as follows:
All kids must feel welcomed and affirmed at school;
Gay kids come to school;
Kids from gay families come to school;
Gay kids and gay families must feel welcomed and affirmed at school.
It’s a perfect set up, of course. Others do not necessarily receive this kind of recognition, but somehow it is requisite for gays. And of course gay-friendly education is then needed. And more to our purposes, gay-friendly sex education is in demand.
Actually, though, what is involved here is education about gay sex activity. Earlier I mentioned Maggie Gallagher’s article. In it she quotes highflying American academic lawyer and gay activist, Chai Feldblum. For Feldblum, ‘It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to “be” gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?’ Gay sex is treated as an essential element of gay identity. Not all gays will see it this way but a large part of the gay movement defines itself in terms of gay sex – trawl their sites if you doubt me. In our increasingly exoticized culture, sexual restraint is less and less in evidence among heterosexuals, but homosexuals are way out ahead, and by being so are contributing to the trend towards unrestrained sexual activity. Teaching about gay sexual identity encourages the view that sexual identity means having sex.
Even as I believe we lost the ‘heterosexual ethics’ issue decades ago, I think the gay sex in schools issue has similarly come and gone…and we never noticed. Why do I say this? Well, sex ‘education’ came to be seen as necessary for the completion of the learning experience of youngsters, to prepare them for ‘life’. Crafted by the ‘experts’, parents trusted the school system simply to get on with it. (Many parents know very little about the details of their children’s school experience at the best of times.) In relation to this issue, however, parents envisioned curriculum in terms of the ‘birds-and-the-bees’. Little did they know that the ‘experts’ were thinking along somewhat different lines. According to the Family Planning Association (UK), ‘Sexual health means enjoying the sexual activity you want without causing yourself or anyone else suffering or physical or mental harm.’ So, instead of ‘education’, insert ‘Tips’ or ‘How-to-do-it-any-and-every-way’ while trying to be ‘safer’, for that is the ideological paradigm deployed here. And few have known or made a fuss.
Let us look at a recent, popular British publication, Key Stage Four PSHE (2001), for children aged 14-16 in secondary schools - and for the record, having sex under 16 is (at the time of writing) illegal. There are some very good qualities to and elements in the book. However, there are some insidiously bad ones as well. I will quote from its pages even though some of my readers may be offended at its breezy tone, value-‘free’ approach (actually, it is underpinned by a very strong set of moralistic values, they just happen to be trendy PC ones), trivialization of serious issues and radical individualism. This is what your daughter or son could be taught by Ms Smith next Tuesday morning in her/his PSHE (Personal, Social, Health Education) class.
As a lead-in to the first quote, the author actively discourages what s/he considers to be ‘early’ sex. I believe this means for those under 13: we read that having sex with a girl under 13 is something society ‘really doesn’t like’; s/he goes on to warn those between 13 and 16 that having sex is risky: one might end up in trouble with the law.
Waiting is Usually Worth It
A lot of people who have sex early [author’s emphasis] can really regret it. Not being ready for your first time makes it rubbish. It’s not worth having sex if you aren’t going to enjoy it.
Oh My---They do…That?
There’s no accounting for taste. People’s likes and dislikes in sex are varied. Not everyone likes oral sex. Not everyone likes ham and cheese sarnies, either. A lot of people are really grossed out by the idea of anal sex. Some people like it, and here’s a reason why: men have a gland called the prostate, near the rectum. If they’re on the receiving end of anal sex, this gland is stimulated, causing sexual pleasure. Some women enjoy it too.
Decisions to engage in sexual activity are solely the youngster’s. Advice is given not to expect parents to be thrilled about one’s sexual activity. ‘It’s natural that your parents will feel, at the least, a bit “icky” about the idea of you having sex. But it is up to you’.
Kids are advised that the wisest way to have oral sex is ‘to use a condom on a man, and clingfilm on a woman’. From the workbook, kids are questioned about how they should avoid getting diseases from oral sex, what should always happen if they opt for anal sex, and ideas for getting ‘sexy’ with another individual without having full penetrative sex (yet). 
With the concern that gay-identified kids be fully educated in relation to the totality of their sexuality, along with straight kids, the drift is towards more and more explicit instruction in the mechanics, procedures and etiquette of sex, all kinds. If you would like to see what is in store, view a copy of literature adolescents were given last April by a gay group in a school in Massachusetts on the website below. It actually is corroborated by information on the preceding and following websites. Take a look if you wish to see what kids may embrace in terms of gay lifestyles when they are slightly older.
I began with discussion of the Federal Marriage Amendment and how both sides were assembled to do battle. The lines are drawn, the participants are ready. But on the marriage side, there are more than a few whom I expected to show up but have failed to do so. As a matter of fact, they never arrived: they will just sit this one out. I explored some of the immediate reasons why they may have done so, the larger historical perspective and specific impacts of secular and religious culture. I also flagged worrying religious liberties and freedom of speech concerns. Then I offered my scenario of where we might be at in a decade or two. Many will say I exaggerate. I will then ask (if you are over 40), if you can recall the zeitgeist of, say, the 70s. In key respects things have changed fundamentally since then but have done so subtly, covertly, while we invested elsewhere. It is easy to miss. Indeed, in our own personal loops these matters may not press. However, it won’t stay like that. Certainly the networks I inhabit indicate that, in the language of the (70s) Virginia Slim cigarette advertisement, ‘We’ve come a long way, baby’…and it’s only just begun. Unless we do something now, we can see the contours of a Brave New World emerging by the day. As for me, my choice will be for the new heavens and the new earth.
Internet sources have been of some importance for my argument above. I want to offer a final comment on the role of the internet in accelerating current developments in the sexual area. The internet has been a huge boon and perhaps an even larger bane. Over the centuries, people have always done all sorts of things with their bodies – and other people’s bodies, animals, implements, etc. - in order to reach a sexual orgasm. No one doubts this. What is new, however, is that for the most part, such individuals did not know about the existence of others of like mind and persuasion. Now, the web has brought them together into virtual communities; they receive much-needed advice, support, legitimization, confidence and visibility. These people have never had greater opportunity or incentive to redefine the status quo. They won’t be going back in the closet again. They know they are far stronger together and out than solo and in.
Lisa Severine Nolland
21 May 2006
 I use ‘gay’ as shorthand for those who tick the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender ‘box’. In doing so, I am not describing my view of its inherent morality. Historically, the word has meant happy, light, carefree. That people use it in PC-speak to describe acts involving same-sex sexual activity is nothing less than phenomenal, one of this movement’s most impressive successes.
 I speak here not in relation to individual people – indeed, there are many homosexuals who are not politically and socially invested in promoting gay causes but just seek to get on with their lives and do so as gay-identified people. Others actively dissociate from the gay scene; they can be seen as people with SSA (same sex attraction) issues who are seeking other ways of handling their ‘orientation’. Still others maintain some involvement in flying the gay flag but invest in other spheres of life too.
 Important evidence to the contrary, as, for example, Matt Daniels and his impressive Alliance for Marriage coalition demonstrate.
 Maggie Gallagher, ‘Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty’, The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006, Volume 011, Issue 33; http://www/weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12191&R=E...
Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead—perhaps because they tended to find it ‘inconceivable’, as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it … By contrast, the scholars who favour gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.
 Paul Flynn, ‘The A Gays’, 16 April 2006; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2104-2123605.html
 For a thorough discussion of this legal case and its political and social implications see “Swingers Clubs” R.v.Labaye 56.0 Supreme Court of Canada 2005 SCC 80; Centre for Cultural Renewal/Centre pour un Renouveau Culturel; http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=114
 Warning: Explicit descriptions in certain of the articles below – and I excluded the more graphic examples.
Mistress Matisse, ‘Control Tower: The Polyamory Interviews: Tess and Otis’, The Stranger, 11th-17th May 2006; http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=32310
Paul Harris, ‘Forget monogamy and swinging: We’re seriously polyamorous’, The Observer, 13 November 2005; http://www.observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1641431,00.html
Beth Duff-Brown, ‘Polygamous Sect in Canada Goes Public’, washingtonpost.com;
Charles Krauthammer, ‘Pandora and Polygamy’, washingtonpost.com;
‘What is alternative sexual expression?’, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom;
Peter Singer, ‘Heavy Petting’, Nerve, 2001; http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----,htm
Vern L. Bullough, ‘A contemporary look at sex between human and animals – Understanding Bestiality & Zoophilia –Book Review’, Journal of Sex Research, May 2003, Understanding Bestiality & Zoophilia, by Hani Miletski, 2002; http:// www.looksmartparents.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_40/ai_105518225
‘What Readers Say About [Miletski’s] Book’ (see above); http://www.drmiletski.com/comments.html
‘The Swing Community – A Profile’, http://www.sexuality.org/swinging.html
Onell R. Soto, ‘Little-known group promotes “benevolent” sex’, SanDiego.com;
North American Man/Boy Love Association: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
If present official reports are accepted, explicit sexual information will become requisite, a ‘statutory foundation subject’. Daily Mail, 11 February 2006.
In answering a query from ‘Equal Time’ correspondent about the anger aroused by the gay barebacking phenomenon among media and straight people, gay pundit, Dan Savage, responds:
Yes, straight people do it [have condomless sex] all the time and they pretty much get a pass. Why? Because HIV infection is not as widespread among heteros as it is among homos. Hetero sex is less effective at spreading HIV; and heterosexual promiscuity will never be the runaway train that homosexual promiscuity once was and is quickly becoming again. (In straight land, ET, female sexual reserve acts as a build-in check on male sexual excess. No females in gayland, no built-in check.)
There is a warning on his sex advice column that it is not for the ‘faint of heart’. This is an understatement; Savage seems honest but is graphic both in terms of verbal and visual imagery .
 See for instance ‘I think I might be gay…now what do I do?; http://www.youth.org/yao/docs/i-think-article-gay.html
Italics mine.‘Introduction: What is sexual health?’ http://www.fpa.org.uk/guide/index.htm
 Key Stage Four PSHE , Coordination Group Publications, Ltd, 2001: The Study Guide, pp. 4-8; The Workbook, p. 7.
And if kids can’t pick it up at school, then thankfully there are websites which will give them lots of interesting tips and advice. (UK):
http://www.youth.org/yao/docs/i-think-article-gay.html (previously mentioned)
 Warning: the first item has duplicated the material in its entirety; for commentary see the second.
Warning: some explicit material here, though I could have given far more graphic examples!
http://www.gayhealth.com; ‘Things You Can Do’, ‘Facts you should know about our favorite recreational activity’, eleven categories f sexual play/activity. It is illuminating to view the above in tandem with John Diggs, Jr., MD., ‘The Health Risks of Gay Sex’, http://www.catholiceducation .org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html, which provides a historical overview since the 70s. Though his study only goes up to 2002 – and hence would not include the most recent research etc. it is remarkable how some, at least, of his material finds corroboration on the gayhealth.com site.
Diggs does not discuss activities like barebacking, which have some popularity in gay microculture, as indicated by Rick Sowadsky, ‘Barebacking in the Gay Community’, May 1999, The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource; http://www.thebody.com/sowadsky/barebacking/html
See also Richard Roeper, ‘What makes bug chasers, gift givers do such a thing?’ Chicago Sun-Times, 22 April 2003, http://www.dolfilms.org/thegift/chicago_sun_roeper.html . Roeper relies on the perspectives of gay documentary maker, Louise Hogarth, in her depictions of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift-giving’.
As well, view ‘HIV infection and risk behaviours among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver’, Robert S Hogg et al., CMAJ, 11 January 2000 162 (1);
Finally, see the just-published Australian study, http://ssdv.acon.org.au/providerinfo/private_lives_report_0.pdf.pdf
Other websites are available on request.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *