| |
|
But to live. To really live is to live in some sort of risk. To live in pain and messiness and to accept the impossibility of its perfect "management." That's the part that attracts me. Thoughts?
OK, let me try again... I guess we can start with crossing the road. To cross the road requires and element of risk. There's always a risk that you will be hit by a car, and the only way to avoid that risk is never to cross the road. And, if you never cross the road, you never get to that all-you-can-eat buffet on the other side of the road. Looking both ways before crossing the road, or waiting for the green man to appear, or waiting for the green man _and_ looking both ways all slow you down, and in some cases may make you too late to do all the fun stuff you want to do on the other side of the road. Most of the time, you don't actually need to do either of these things - you can just barrel across the road and do OK.
That's road safety, and so politics arguably don't apply, but then to a degree safer sex, although it _can_ be a political issue, I don't think it necessary need be political. Alas, you say above that your friend's enjoyment of sex is massively reduced if he does not either penetrate or experience penetration without a condom. That seems to me to be pretty much key. The reduction in pleasure does not justify the reduction in risk. Ergo, no condom. After that, one can talk about politics or poetics, but I think it's unwise to underestimate the compelling argument presented by getting off. After that, it probably comes down to how responsible one wishes to be _around_ that - making it clear, I suppose, that this unprotected sex is not a special-occasion thing, but rather a matter of policy. Ideally, I suppose, one would seek out the sexual company of people who were already afflicted with whatever one might be risking by one's current sexual behaviour - thus allowing one to experience the risk one finds politically and poetically valuable oneself without putting others at risk themselves.
On the other hand, it's not as if people aren't _aware_ of risk - so, why should one person be responsible? One might look, for example, at people who are not HIV-postive who remain in sexual relationships with people who are, while taking action to try to avoid infection themselves - messy sex, but not dirty sex, as Tony Kushner puts it. There's a moral/relational issue there - at the risk of going Asiatic myself, that the actuality of love - and of sex - is more important than the possibility of a particular risk of death. See also bloodplay, breath control, electroplay and so on.
Hmmm. This is an interesting one, and probably one that needs more thought, perhaps outside this thread. |
|
|
