That's my point--nobody shuts down places where straights go for "hookups" because they can do it in socially acceptable places like bars.

For decades, gays were forced to do it in places like rest stops...and even though gay bars are now acceptable in many areas, frequenting them can still be a stigma in some circles, in which acknowledgement of one's homosexuality can be a detriment to career and life.

.

Cops don't bust whorehouses any more?

.

Prostitution is against the law; no one is suggesting that the men at the rest stops in question, or at a gay bar, are receiving payment (or offering payment) for their services.

Yet, they are treated as if they are breaking the law.

.

Lewd behavior *is* against the law.

Staten Island Teacher Arrested For Lewd Behavior - Parents In The Area Are Outraged

.

The problem is that "lewd behavior" is a lot like pornography--nobody can define but they all know it when they see it.

And, quite often, what might be arrestable lewd behavior between two men would be ignored if performed by a mixed couple...or, at the very least, let go with a warning.

.

Your speculation.

If that's your belief, then your problem is with the inconsistency?

Fine. The law should always be enforced. I've no problem with that.

.

Gay men make up approximately 1% of the population, but account for over 40% of AIDS cases. Saying gays would have to come up with more than 500 times the straight infection rate, because of the higher risk in gay sex, for it to be accurately considered a "gay problem" makes no sense. The method of infection is intrinsic to the lifestyle. There are other ways to get off than the most potentially infectious (not to mention disgusting) route, anal intercourse. But most gay men still choose to head down the Hershey Highway, anyway.

Of the dozens of gay men I've known (possibly more than a hundred) and conversed with regarding sexual acts, only one said that he didn't engage in anal intercourse *anymore*. That is to say, he used to. But he opted against it for two reasons: 1-his personality type always put him in the role of The Bottom; and 2-he was getting on into his 50's and was beginning to experience other problems in that area of his anatomy. But it was still requested of him because it's pretty much requisite of the lifestyle.

Of the definitely more than a hundred gay people I've personally known, I know of only two monogamous male couples (I never heard of any monogamous female couples). One got together because they were afraid of getting AIDS. The other tried to separate for a while, but couldn't find any other gay men whose drama queen bullshit they could put up with, so got back together.

Conversely, I know of four straight couples who are not only monogamous, but are also the only sex partners each other has ever had.

Probably the most promiscuous individual I ever knew was a straight guy. But his tactic for seducing women was making them think he was gay. Interpret however you wish.

Gays are far more promiscuous than straights. Go into a porno bookstore and compare the content of the gay literature vs. the straight. The idea of anonymous multiples is much more prominent in the gay. I don't know why anyone would challenge the notion simply because it's become a stereotype. Stereotypes have to come from somewhere. A lot of likeable and interesting people, no doubt, but all the gays I've known have been pretty good about living up to the stereotypes.

necrotechno:

First, has it occurred to you to ask yourself why you find it necessary to resort to terms like "Hershey Highway" when discussing gay sex? Why do you immediately turn to derogatory terminology?

Second, has it occurred to you that gays are seemingly more promiscuous because society has, for centuries, not permitted them to establish stable monogamous relationships with the same benefits that straights enjoy? Or even without the denigrations that perpetually apply to any two unmarried men living together?

Goody, repeating a previously addressed idea without adding anything new to it.

You'll fit right in on this thread.

I saw a guy on the red line once, dressed up as the Tin Woodsman of Oz, who was screaming passages from Leviticus.

Clearly, religious people are batshit insane. My personal experience says so.

Two words: Annabelle Chong.

Other than that one exception though, I have to admit that straight porn has long been reknowned the world over for the depth and subtlety of emotion felt between the characters. When the man with the bad seventies tennis outfit enters the room and says, "I'm here to fix the cable", you can sense the many layers of complexity in the long-standing and loving relationship he has with the woman who was just about to hop in the shower, long before Grand Funk Railroad starts playing.

In this case? Because you haven't given us anything other than your personal experience with the dozens... no, possibly more than a hundred... no, wait, definitely more than a hundred gay guys you know.

Yeah. Usually from folks who decide that their personal experiences are true across the board, and start proclaiming them as such.

.

AIDS isn't a disease. It's a syndrome. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Springing from the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV.

Not one shred of evidence to support this hypothesis.


.

Yes, I know the rhetoric. However, I worked with Paris Kidd from 1989 to 1992 with Organic Germanium (ge-132) and MSM, and we found some interesting things out. Things like the only deaths from Kaposi's and pneumocystis were from the folks who were trying to treat this new insult to their immune systems with DNA CHAIN SYNTHESIS TERMINATORS like AZT, and DDI etc etc etc. If you teach DNA not to replicate by breaking the chain into it, the end result is cancer. Cancer like carinii for example. Why say hello to our old friend Tuberculosis again!!

You do understand about viruses mutating into more dangerous forms, eh?

What I understand even more is what immunity really is. You understand what immunity is, right? Like, you show antibodies to a virus when you are immune to it.

Simple basic immunology 101. You are immune to a virus when you show immunity to it. You think treating HIV victims with AZT does anything but insure their deaths? These people are so immune compromised from amyl nitrate abuse, injectable/intravenous drug abuse, and prophylactic antibiotic abuse that it's a wonder they can even survive the course of treatment. Truth is, most of them don't.

Well, ask Earvin Johnson what he thinks about AZT. He's got AIDS, right? Except he wasn't a homo, so he probably won't die from it, or something equally ridiculous.

This is about many other things besides sexual promiscuity.