So, as you can see, Jim has very graciously included a link to our Heroic Homosex site.

One of the best things Jim has done in this piece is taken on "political correctness."

Last week I wrote to Larry Kramer, as I have occasionally for the last FIVE YEARS, about the alleged HIV superstrain and the FROT solution;

and, for the first time in five years, during which time 100,000 gay and bi American men were infected with HIV, Larry responded.

Faced with a new and deadly strain and with an administration in Washington which doesn't care what he thinks, Larry at first said he was interested in working with us to "de-eroticize anal sex" as he put it.

He sent a bunch of his mainstream gay buddies to our Man2Man Alliance site, and almost instantly, they started screaming about these words in our description of the men of the Alliance:

It was our rejection of effeminacy which really freaked them out.

Larry was quick to cover his ass by claiming to his mailing list that he hadn't seen those words -- difficult to believe given that they're in big, bold, centered type at the top of the definition of The Man2Man Alliance; and then started attacking me in typical LK fashion.

You can't do that Larry wrote, and when I said, yes I can, and more to the point, our membership is united on this issue, Larry called me a Nazi, and shit, and some other names, etc.

And what else is new?

Reality number one: effeminacy both facilitates and is a consequence of anal penetration.

If you're serious about doing something about HIV and shit sex, you need to get real about that.

Reality number two: But even if you don't agree that there's a link between effeminacy and shit sex, the question is, as it's always been, since the outbreak of the epidemic, which is more important:

Political Correctness?

or

SAVING LIVES?

For more than 20 years, the gay male community and the ASOs have put being PC -- which in their case means propping up and protecting anal and promiscuity -- ahead of saving gay male lives.

The only way to stop HIV and all the other anally-vectored STD is to forget the PC nonsense and concentrate on speaking the truth about shit sex and HIV.

That's what Jim Lynch has done in his blog.

Please read Jim's piece.

And please please please pass it on to ALL your friends:

http://www.jimlynch.com/blog/index.php?p=986

[Sorry guys -- as of 2/20/2006, the piece appears to have been scrubbed]

Post the URL everywhere you can -- get this one circulated guys.

It's a terrific piece.

Jim understands that the MSM community has to take on shit sex and it has to take it on now.

Please help Jim get the word out.

Tell your friends and remember

Greg Milliken

Re: Shit Sex

2-20-2005

A message for Larry Kramer:

Dear Mr. Kramer,

It would be both a shame and a tragedy if you were to not include Bill Weintraub's work in fighting this new supervirus, what I shall call HIV 2.0. It would be a shame not only because he has some brilliant ideas, but also because the one aspect of the site you have a problem with is the result of a misunderstanding.

You see, when your team came to his website and viewed the messages decrying effeminateness, they automatically assumed that Bill was attacking gay people with feminine traits. In reality, however, this is far from the case. Bill is simply reminding gay people of who they are.

Let's start by taking a trip back to the turn of the century. The turn of the 20th century, that is, the year 1900. During the last half of the 1800's, there was a new wave of psychological and physiological arguments about the nature of men and women. Women were supposed to be weak, sickly and inneffectual, in society's view. This was reinforced by the type of clothing women wore (very restrictive clothing which clenched around the stomach, causing gastrointestinal problems), the diet they were supposed to live on (it was considered improper for ladies to choose meat) and the general thought that women who learned too much would have their brains leak out their ears.

What does this have to do with gay men, you ask? Well, it was the thought that men who loved other men were like women. This was the leading psychological explanation for why men preferred the company of other men, and it remains with us to this day in the form of effeminateness. I know this is the case because I was taking a gender history course at my university. I suppose if you don't wish to take my word for it, you can look it up yourself, as I am sure the information is widely disseminated, especially on the internet.

On to the point, though, there is no reason gay men have to act effeminate except because other gay men tell them they are effeminate.

Furthermore, to act effeminate is damaging to both the community and the individual. It takes all of the good aspects of what women are--nurturance and intuition--and throws them away. This leaves a bitter shell of womanliness that should be offensive to both women and gay-identified men, and IS offensive to most straight-identified men. Calling each other "bitch" and "gurl" does nothing except reinforce a culture where it is good not only to be penetrated, but to be penetrated, WITHOUT the need or desire to nurture a relationship between the penetrator and the penetratee.

It should be fully understood that Bill does not denigrate feminine traits or women, only this denigration of them. Repeatedly on his website he refers to the good feminine qualities of nurturance and intuition in a positive manner. I repeat, it is only this gross abortion of true feminine values in favor of a bitchy pseudo-womanly archetype which Bill speaks out against.

And I would go even further and suggest that this effeminate behavior hurts us professionally. As Bill Cosby says about young black people, doctors don't speak ebonics. Similarly, doctors don't call each other bitch and girl. At least no doctor I've ever been to has.

It's time to see effeminateness as it truly is, a useless left-over psychological construct from a time when women were viewed as, not simply different, but also inferior to men.

And if men want to value nurturance and intuition, they are free to do it, just drop the bitchy, queeny attitude.

But I should say that men are different from women.

Even in native American societies, which are widely believed to have been matriarchal in nature, men were the hunters and women were the gatherers. The men went out and raided neighboring tribes and hunted for food while the women stayed home, tended the gardens and raised the children.

Even when women hold the political power in a society, they retain their feminine qualities.

In fact, in every society created by the human species, at least that I can think of, men are the providers and women are the nurturers. While it may be true that some other species of primates reverse these roles (i.e. the males raise the children while the women gather food) it is important to keep in mind that they are just that, other species. There is no reason to believe that in the long history of the human species men have been anything other than providers, and women anything but nurturers.

You can blame this on the cultural dominance of males throughout human history if you'd like, but again I point to Native American culture. Furthermore, all primate species exhibit their own cultures, as do species closely associated with primates (dogs, for example). It is only when differentiated between different species that male/female roles change places. So while one species of primate may have women hunting and men nurturing, it will always be the case in that species that women will hunt and men will nurture. Likewise in other species men will always be providers and women always nurturers. There are even species of primates where both men and women nurture and provide, but always in these societies both sexes do both activities. Whether there are differences between the sexes is not a question of culture, rather it is fundamentally a question of biology.

I also took a course on primate evolution, as you may be able to tell, and again I remind you that all this information is freely available to those who look for it.

These differences are what make women and men different, even though there is no reason to believe they make one sex inferior to the other. I would think that the most well-functioning human beings express the positive characteristics of both sexes. This is also shown on Bill's website. He shows ancient Greek images of warriors taking care of each other, tending each others wounds after a battle. He also expresses the ideal of when fighting cocks become mating cocks, a switch from the male role of aggression to the more feminine role of nurturance. This switch is fulfilled upon climax, when two men, often simultaneously, share the ultimate joy two humans can share with each other.

The point of this is that Bill cannot be "discriminatory against those who are less than butch", as you put it in your gay.com piece, if he is simply speaking out against a misogynist and outdated understanding of homosexuals to begin with. That is akin to calling someone a "racist" for questioning whether it's a good idea to openly promote the offensive and outdated Uncle Tom stereotype of black culture's history.

I do hope you read over this letter and come to the correct conclusions, Mr. Kramer, as there is more at stake here than simply offending a few people. Is it worth it to protect the gay "Uncle Tom's" sense of unquestioned righteousness over the lives of men who have sex with men? I don't think so, and neither should you.