Gay Identity and Activism in the Wake of AIDS: A Piece of Eric Rofes’ Legacy

“Among the most effective ways of oppressing a people is through the colonization of their bodies, the stigmatizing of their desires, and the repression of their erotic desires and the repression of their erotic energies”
–“The Emerging Sex Panic Targeting Gay Men” by Eric Rofes (p.727)

§0: Introduction

Consider the following question:

What does it mean to be a healthy gay man in the wake of the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s?

In the wake of the HIV/AIDS crisis, this question was important in two ways. On the one hand, it was important in the creation of a new variety of gay identity. That is, a gay identity formulated and constructed either in the grasp of the HIV/AIDS epidemic itself or in the years following the epidemic as the understandings formulated and necessitated by the crisis rippled out to inundate and form a new corpus of understanding and intelligibility of gay identity. On the other hand, it was also important in setting the tone and program for public health interventions and policies.

As the pandemic progressed and eventually began to wane, new understandings emerged pertaining to identity, at times, were lauded as the only correct answers to the above question. These answers in turn shaped not only identity formation and understanding, but as noted above influenced and shaped health interventions and frameworks. For example, in sexual health circles a healthy gay man was depicted as a gay man who did not engage in condomless sex, did not engage in anal sex at all, and who ascribed to monamory. However, answers like this did not go without critique or calls for substantial revision and reflection. One person who sought to destabilize many of the answers, and health responses, to this question was Eric Rofes.

View post on

Rather than accept what he took to be a “repression of […] erotic desires and […] erotic energies,” [1] he furnished an intersectional and liberatory understandings of how we might answer the question without ceding to moralism and a mono-heternormative parsing of relationships, connection, and family. In doing so, he called on persons, especially gay men, to question who sets the conditions for what counts as a healthy gay man and he questioned how to build lines of solidarity and activism that could create new, non-hierarchical understandings while contesting definitions that upheld some gay bodies and persons at the expense of others.

Prior to his untimely death in 2006, Eric Rofes was a prolific author and activist who engaged the conversations noted above and, in doing so, furnished additional questions and frameworks for consideration. In this paper, I examine a set of five speeches Rofes presented 1993-2002 which critiqued many of the common answers to the above question. In doing so, I strive to analyze these speeches for components of theory and praxis and I argue that Rofes’ own understanding of how to answer the above question contests the legitimacy of these “correct answers” and furnishes, instead, an account that allows intergroup difference while also centering the role of activism and coalition building in opening up avenues of potentiality in identity formation and understanding without being proscriptive or delimiting.

In defending this thesis, I pull not only from Rofes’ speeches, but also from two works by Audre Lorde given similarities in the use and place of the erotic in theory and praxis. I also turn to an interview conducted with Dr.Christian Matheis who interacted with Rofes at Creating Change, heard him speak to elements of his theory in person, and who was able to illuminate the patience and compassion that underlie Rofes’ work. I also turn to secondary sources, such as work done by Historian Alan Berube, that contextualize why the common definitions of a “healthy gay man” were so pernicious at the time of his writing and required response from those concerned with gay liberation. Finally, I pull from dialogues and conversations held in a memorial session entitled “The Eric Rofes Legacy” at Creating Change 2017 in order to highlight Rofes’ long lasting impact on activists, scholars, and community activists concerning their understandings of their own identities, the roll of pleasure in their lives, and their commitments to community organizing.

§2 Context Setting: Laws, Actions, and Dispositions

In order to understand why Rofes furnished specific critiques and recommendations we must first understand the context in which he was writing and the movements he was writing in response to. While it is clear that he is writing in the context and in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis, he is also writing and working in response to what he and others called a “Sex Panic”. As noted by historians such as Allan Bérubé, a sex panic is a “moral crusade that leads to crackdowns on sexual outsiders.” [2] The history of moralism and sex panics is not new to the United States and, as Bérubé notes, the history of the United States is replete with instances of shutting down gay oriented establishments. This is especially true of establishments which centered or permitted transgressions in sexual mores and customs. For example, bathhouses were a space where gay men could avoid “isolation and develop a sense of community and pride in their sexuality” [3] but they were also the targets of police raids, governmental legislation, and increased scrutiny in the wake of HIV/AIDS.

Moving into the 1990s a new sexual and moral panic emerged in the United States as a result of a movement we may broadly construe as “The Right.” The Right furnished a new wave of sustained persecution for gay men and other sexual minorities who did not ascribe to or practice what we may call heteronormative proscriptions.[4] This persecution included utilizing Megan’s Law to target gay men even though the policy was formally much broader in application and scope. The 1990s also included a number of newly instantiated public policies and ordinances that targeted and restricted spaces where gay men not only congregated but also where they had sex such as bars, sex theaters, and bathhouses. These and other concerns are, in fact, represented in the teach-in pamphlet from SexPanic!  which is one of the organizations founded by Rofes and others in response to the moves to criminalize, ostracize, and punish those engaging in transgressive sex. [5] Laws and policies were not the only emergent problem during this time that Rofes and others had to account for and respond to. In addition to formal legislative restrictions the court of public opinion was replete with less than favorable representations of gay men and had a penchant for focusing on sexual acts and preferences, such as barebacking, that could be linked to the HIV/AIDS crisis within the gay community


TANF and Drug Testing: A Critique of Background Motives and Assumptions

In the previous blogpost, I examined a truncated history of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program which emerged from the 1996 passing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act Public Law 104-193 (PRWORA) by Bill Clinton. As noted in that post, PRWORA overhauled the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which primarily target and supported families with children who had little to no income and transitioned that program into what we now know as TANF.

Continue reading “TANF and Drug Testing: A Critique of Background Motives and Assumptions”

TANF and Drug Testing: Historical Overview and Goals


When Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act Public Law 104-193 (PRWORA) in 1996, the United States reshuffled and, in some ways, curtailed standing welfare programs to various degrees. One program that faced massive overhaul was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which primarily target and supported families with children who had little to no income. With the passing of the 1996 act, ADFC was transitioned into the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and a number of shifts occurred concerning the implementation of welfare at the state level and the relationship of the national government in providing welfare. In this blog post, I aim to do two things to understand these latter nuances.

Continue reading “TANF and Drug Testing: Historical Overview and Goals”

VT-GrATE: Teach-In

Two weeks ago or so I was fortunate enough to give a presentation on the Null Curriculum of Sex and Gender in the Sciences. During my part of the session we processed through what we were historically taught about sex (namely that there are two), gender (also that there are two and that it should correlate with biological sex), and all the things we weren’t taught. What haven’t we been taught?

Well, we usually weren’t taught that:

  • there are at least 6 sexes
  • the Eurocentric and Western of gender has been and always will be in flux
  • Intersex folks call into question the consistency of our correlation of gender and sex
  • Intersex “conditions” are extremely common.
  • 1/1600 people do not have XX or XY chromosome configurations.
  • 1/200-1/2000 people have an intersex condition to include physical “abnormalities”

Continue reading “VT-GrATE: Teach-In”

Higher Ed: How Do We Educate? The Wrong Way

If I could change one thing right now in Higher Education, it would be our educational model. Specifically, I think we absolutely need to, and must, move away from the banking model of education that tends to be the default throughout many of our disciplines.

In this model there are the folks with the knowledge and those without. The “haves” present the material to the “have-nots” and in doing so allow them to acquire something that they were lacking; this is obviously a deficit model.

Continue reading “Higher Ed: How Do We Educate? The Wrong Way”

MOOCs: Some Attendance Required


While I am in favor of MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses), I also think that for all the positivity there is a way in which we tend to gloss over some of the sticking points for the approach and the negative impacts privileging the digital over the actual can have on faculty at a given institution.

Continue reading “MOOCs: Some Attendance Required”

I Need More Ice Cream for This

It was not in Raj Lyubov’s nature to think. Character and training disposed him not to interfere in other mens’s business. His job was to find out what they did, and his inclination was to let them go on doing it. He preferred to be enlightened, rather than to enlighten; to seek facts rather than the Truth. But even the most unmissionary soul, unless he pretend he has no emotions, is sometimes faced with a choice between commission and omission. “What are they doing?” abruptly becomes, “What are we doing?” and then, “What must I do?”
The Word for World is Forest by Ursula Le Guin (2010, p. 124)

When I started reading the selections for this week the above quote from one of Ursula Le Guin’s books came to mind and a pint of Ben and Jerry’s went into my hand. In higher education, in our graduate school careers, in the courses we teach, and with the students we work with the question remains: what are we doing?


Continue reading “I Need More Ice Cream for This”

What Counts as Inclusion?

How far do you have to go to pee? Take a few minutes to think about it and then think about how far you’d have to go if the closest restroom was closed.

For many people on this campus, the answer to the first question is “right down the hallway” though for some folks the answer may be “on the next floor”. For the second question, a number of folks may answer “on the next floor” and, maybe, a few would say “the next building”.

Would that answer change if you were disabled? Would it change if you had a small child you had to take care of? Would it change if you were trans or gender non-conforming?

Continue reading “What Counts as Inclusion?”