Dear Bareback Andy --a response by Signorile to Andrew Sullivan's recent article on HIV--"Still Here, So Sorry"-- how HIV vastly improved his life. (Sullivan also famously and prematurely wrote about the End of Aids in '96)
posted by amberglow on Jun 23, 2005 - 51 comments

The old battleaxe is back. Impressed with his performance at the New School, Camille Paglia and the Blog Queen seem to have a bit of a partnership.

I post a link about the conflict in the Levant with fear, loathing, and asbestos, but nonetheless, this mini-article is a well thought-out piece.
posted by goethean on Aug 15, 2002 - 8 comments

The Gay Right. Richard Goldstein argues (accurately, I think) that the Right has come to dominate gay and lesbian politics. Even when I don't agree with them, I've always enjoyed reading Andrew Sullivan and Norah Vincent -- but where are their progressive counterparts?
posted by MikeB on Jun 17, 2002 - 21 comments

Great article on the whole Andrew Sullivan and Michael Signoreli fiasco. Finally, a well written viewpoint about the barebacking incident that raised the hackles of gay conservatives and liberals alike.
posted by chason on Jun 8, 2001 - 3 comments

Is this Andrew Sullivan's ass? This morning, Jim Romenesko made a questionable publishing decision. He ran a link to an article in last Friday's edition of the newspaper LGNY, in which Michelangelo Signorile makes a very serious allegation: That Andrew Sullivan has been advertising for "bareback" sex online (anal sex w/o condoms). Such actions on Sullivan's part would be seen by many as exceedingly hypocritical given his voluminous writings of a moral conservative bent and his "arrogance toward the ghettoized gay scene" (as Signorile puts it), if not downright dangerous given his HIV+ status.

If true, this brings up plenty of ideological and moral issues, which I'm sure will be discussed in this thread. But that's not why I'm bringing it up here. I'm posting because of the vaguely Kayceeish nature of the whole thing. If you look at Signorile's article, you'll see that all the evidence is circumstantial. Several people who Signorile really really trust say they answered the ads and Sullivan was the guy that showed up when they met. The photos in the ads look like what most people expect Sullivan's body to look like (minus his head, of course). Also, Sullivan hasn't responded to anyone's questions about this, and after all, if the accusations were false wouldn't Sullivan be loudly denying them (wink wink)?

Complicating the whole mess is Signorile's own journalistic history - he made his name during the late '80s-early '90s running gossipy columns outing famous people against their will - and that Romenesko decided to publicize this article in the first place, thus ensuring that every single person in the national media is fully aware of the allegations, true or not. Is this actual proof that Sullivan is guilty of barebacking, or is he being Borked (Kayceed?)? Should it have been publicized like this in the first place, since a mention in Romenesko is the best way to start up a classic pack journalism action short of running a front-page story in The New York Times? Will other media outlets jump on this now and sully Sullivan's reputation, whether the allegations are true or not?
posted by aaron on May 29, 2001 - 41 comments