In a post titled "What constitutes homophobia?," Clayton Cramer links to a post by Second Amendment blogger Progun Progessive, who is indignant over Cramer's link to an explicit "safe sex" flyer which has been faithfully reproduced and criticized at the anti-gay "Americans for Truth" website.

Oh, yes, the flyer has lots of shock value -- for those who are shocked by graphic details about things like rimming and anal sex. It failed to shock me, because I learned about those things decades ago, I know that they go on, and I know that there are different ways of doing them.

AFT has graphically reproduced the flyer in full color, and it's easy to follow the links to it; the main reason I am not linking it is that I grew a little tired of this "sexploitation" stuff back when Jerry Falwell used to market "shocking" videos of homos frolicking at gay parades.

Cramer says he was taken to task for "linking to a homophobic website," but he argues that all the website did was accurately reproduce the flyer:

Now, if Americans for Truth had selectively reproduced that flyer, or misrepresented its contents, there might be a basis to be upset about it. But they reproduced the entire flyer--and the contents of it--especially the gross and unhygenic parts--well, I've been seeing gay sex flyers like at college campuses in the Bay Area (often reproduced with my tax dollrs) for decades now.

If Progun Progressive doesn't want people to see stuff like this that makes homosexual men look like sickos, perhaps instead of attacking me and Americans for Truth for reproducing the flyer, he should be talking to gay men who think that this is appropriate behavior to be encouraging.

The argument over the leaflet involves a classic conflict over audiences; one intended, one not. Now that everyone is online, there's a lot of this going on, and I think it's fair topic to address. The AFT site thinks that homosexual behavior should be discouraged, not encouraged, and attacks the leaflet for that reason, also because it was apparently designed for teens. Doubtless the leaflet's designer (the Howard Brown medical clinic) had in mind people already engaged in that sort of behavior, and not the anti-gay "Americans for Truth." Now that there is free public access to anything that exists (limited only by the millions of imaginations with access to the Internet) there is no way to stop this leaflet or any other leaflet from being disseminated worldwide. Whether the AFT likes it or not, they're doing the lion's share of the promotion here; not the Howard Brown center.

I love the irony of promotion through condemnation, and it's not new topic here.

But on a personal level there's a further irony -- the inner complexities of which are beyond the grasp of my limited ability to psychoanalyze myself. Why am I not linking to the AFT, and the leaflet? Certainly, it is not because I refuse to link "homophobic" sites. (The word is in quotes because I think it's nonsense.) I like to think it's because I am trying to avoid the type of "sexploitation" that irritates me, but on the other hand, if my theory is correct (that AFT is unwitttingly doing the promotion for the Howard Brown Center), then I should link it with pleasure, or else stand accused of failing to promote and encourage homosexual behavior!

As I see it, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. So the easy way out is to do nothing and not link AFT's rimming leaflet reproduction. (Did I word that accurately? It doesn't look, um, "normal." Should I have said "reproduction of the rimming leaflet"? Or am I calling attention to the reproduction of rimming either way?)

By not linking, I can always say I didn't do anything, and go into full passive aggressive mode if attacked. (Even that sounds a bit sick. In the head I mean. No, maybe not....)

Or is that bad self-analysis? See why I hate getting into personal stuff? It's a no win.

But personal issues are what prompted this post, so I might as well stay with that topic, hopefully without getting really personal. (After all, I wouldn't want to horrify my readers, would I?) The thing is, over the years I've seen that incivility is the result when people feel personally attacked, and obviously Progun Progressive does. What he forgets is that the leaflet is as much free speech as the website attacking it, and, reading the comments, I'm pretty sure he thinks Cramer is (by his discussion of homosexuality in comments and emails) pointing accusatory fingers at him and his (lesbian) sister.

I've found that it's tough to reach a point where disagreements like this are not taken personally, because (as I've argued I don't know how many times) they seem inherently personal. It's easier for me to defend things in theory, but I can remember a time when I did not like the feeling of being accused (by people who didn't know me at all) of actually eating feces or molesting children, and I'd get a little hot under the collar. Now I tend to see an accusation like that as reflecting more on the accuser, who after all knows nothing about me, and I might ask him how he'd like it if I resorted to speculations about his personal life. Then again, I might not. Might be better to leave it.

Why any human would care what another human does with his genitalia never ceases to amaze me.

But there's the undeniable "ick" factor at work (at play?) here.

Cramer concluded by saying this:

If you don't want people to go "ick" when you distribute flyers about "rimming," don't distribute flyers about it.

"If you don't want people to go "ick" when you distribute flyers about "rimming," then you should distribute as many flyers as possible about it."

As it is, I barely care. But I cared enough to write this blog post, because I think Clayton Cramer is a good guy, and I was sorry to see him attacked by Progun Progressive, even though I completely understand why he was attacked. It has the elements of tragedy -- especially the apparent hopelessness of such disagreements. There was a time in my life when I would have reacted just as Progun Progressive is reacting. And now, even though I don't agree with Cramer's views on homosexuality, I have tried to develop a larger understanding of the meaning and importance of free speech, especially the importance of being able to disagree on personal issues without personal acrimony.

Not that blogging about it will fix it, but then, blogging about the Philadelphia Inquirer's gun control policies hasn't fixed that either, and I doubt that it ever will.

(Sorry to change the subject a bit, but it struck me that the gun issue was at least peripherally involved.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: It occurs to me that the recent calls for a blogosphere "speech code" will only hinder civility in cases like this, because people will fear saying what they think lest they run afoul of the code. But I guess that's also another topic.