There have been no "distortions" in the reporting of the Sullivan story. He's acknowledged all the facts are true. If his character suffers, he has himself to blame.

The tedious charge of "sexual McCarthyism," which he is making in his defense, ignores all the salient points.

A. Sullivan posted his bareback page in a public site. He thereby sacrificed his own claim to privacy. People here on CFS are not very charitable even when men get caught fucking in restrooms. And yet here is poor Andrew caught with his pants down in public, and it's McCarthyism. There's NO entrapment here.

B. Had Sullivan not a long history of outing and condmemning other people's sex lives, including Clinton's and Jackson's, and had he not made a career out of condemning unconventional sexual styles, I do not believe this story would have been reported. Yes, his work includes confessions of his own "promiscuous" impulses and behavior, but they are vastly understated as the pecadilloes of a backslider. Instead, it turns out he is a man into orgies, bi scenes milking raw loads with his glutes and he excludes the company of fats, fems and men over 50. All this from a man who has attacked promiscuity and stereotyping in gay life.

How many of the people attacking Signorile also attacked outers of Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker? Sullivan's supporters keep arguing that this is an ideological battle but the truth is that they have made it so with their own accusation of "McCarthyism." The only difference between Sullivan and the two preachers is that they regarded Sullivan as one of their own. Notice how the arguments shift from "the sites are bogus" to "it's a conspiracy even if the sites were his."

C. Clinton did not lecture us about morality. He lied and covered-up the Big Blowjob, but he was never known as a moralist. Indeed, he was despised throughout his Administration for his inital and abortive effort to open the military to gay people. If anything, he was hated for his refusal to judge people's morality (the Defense of Marriage aside

Oh, and please notice that at the same time Poor Andrew put up his reply to the events on his web site, he took DOWN the copy of his column in Sunday's London Times in which he attacks Clinton's post-Presidential sexual escapades, even making UNSUBSTANTIATED references to AN ANONYMOUS 19 year year old nymphet. I guess Andrew just ran out of bandwidth and needed to take that down by coincidence.

D. Sullivan is completely insincere. He has raged endlessly about the "cult of gay victimology," but, as Signorile points out in a letter on Poynter, his reply is nothing but a claim to have been victimized by the left. He takes utterly no responsibility.

E. The argument about anonymous sources, conflating them with confidential ones, is dead in the water. There is now a substantiated, un-anonymous source: Andrew Sullivan. And why did he confess? Because of the reporting of confidential sources. They told the truth, as had been confirmed by writers and editors. DUH.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]