-
Kirk Read 03/16/2012 9:39:00 PM
"And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts was not a novel. It was an exhaustive non-fiction work about the early years of the AIDS epidemic. This would be like calling Susan Faludi's "Backlash" a novel.
-
Rob 01/12/2012 8:57:00 AM
Well, I must say this has been very educational ; after reading very carefully right from the beginning all the arguments on this issue open by Mr Claude Wynne, all the comments, replies and suggestions; not ONCE I found the use of the word LOVE in all the writing. It becomes pretty obvious to me that all this discussion and arguments fail to address the key to unravel the WHY in human behaviour in a society.
I do not leave in the USA society, but in a place north of your border, where rather than attack and take fundamental stand points in issues that are affecting our society, we tend to observe and promote more compassionate ways to deal with the issues that are of concern in our communities. Yes, we do have socialized medicine here and yes, we all in Canada pick up the tab for the care of the cost this implies.
Being for over 3 decades an active member in the gay community and an active member in many of the organizations that helps, supports, educates and treat with compassion members of our community that are living with STD’s, HIV included; I have found that a common factor in our approach have help to overcome these issues effectively: “The art of listening with a caring heart, an open mind and a loving attitude to members in our community.” This helps to make education more effective in young adults that are confronted with the choice of whether to bare back or not, use drugs or not, get tested or not, start treatment for HIV infection and other STD’s or not. It is all done with out passing judgement on them, or applying the element of fear to control their final choice. This approach is VERY effective.
Many times during my life I have visited many of the gay communities in the USA, San Francisco one of them; and found them to be friendly, kind, and warm hearted, very different from the picture that is being projected in this forum.
USA is filled with a diverse melting pot of cultures, Canada is a mosaic of cultures, this is what set one nation apart from the other, neither one of the two has the right or choice to say “I am right, you are wrong”.
Both nations have to deal with issues in our society that are very similar such as the use of drugs, the spreading of HIV, the choice of bare backing or safe sex and many others. But as I mention one aspect in this forum caught my attention from the beginning, the lack of the use of the word LOVE. The use of this word is something you will find very prevalent in all our printed literature when addressing the same issues that you are confronting. There is the use of the word COST a lot on this forum instead. It came very clear to me that there is something missing in this entire discussion, especially because I am well aware that the USA society has a lot of LOVE in its true core.
Just food for thought from a person that adores our neighbours to the south.
With loving regards,
Rob
-
12/13/2011 4:35:00 AM
We are talking about sex clubs, licensed for-profit businesses that are already highly regulated. You will get thrown out if you don't wear shoes (nobody complains about the "shoe police") but not if you have unprotected sex. What is wrong with this picture? And no one is talking about arresting anyone. Even in the 80s, when HIV was still a death sentence, the only penalty for not using a condom at a sex club was being asked to leave.
And if you really don't know anyone is getting public assistance, you have a very narrow circle of friends. There are plenty of people getting help from the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, not to mention Medi-Cal or Healthy San Francisco. But even people with private health insurance are only paying a fraction of the cost of their drugs and medical care, which is much greater than their premiums and co-pays. Moreover, this city is spending millions of dollars each year on AIDS treatment, services and prevention. Multiply that many times over for the State and Federal government.
-
11/29/2011 11:24:00 PM
link it
-
Guest 11/24/2011 1:20:00 AM
"It would make him feel unique and "different." Something to set him apart, he says. When a friend and "secret lover" in his early 20s died from AIDS, Butler expressed regret that he couldn't share the experience. "
WTF is wrong with these people?
-
11/23/2011 3:43:00 PM
you know, frankly speaking I listen a bit different music, but after listening to your song "Together we made it" with my favourite Linkin Park I got so much interested that nowadays I don't even know how to describe my music tastes:))) case pariuri sportive
-
Trophyboy1 11/20/2011 6:45:00 AM
Mentioned only briefly, this article sorely missed the relevant and important opportunity to investigate and report on more current and accurate scientific research (such as the Swiss Study) which reveals that the true mathematical odds of HIV transmission during unprotected sex is verifiably reduced to less than 10,000 to 1 against, when the HIV positive individual is effectively treated and maintaining a consistently undetectable viral load, by responsibly adhering to Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART). For the large majority of these HIV positive men, simply taking their medications is a highly effective form of 'safe sex'. It is now well known, at least within the HIV scientific community, that effective treatment renders these HIV positive men virtually non-contagious to their partners during barrier-free (bareback) sexual contact. The ignorant unwillingness of the community at large to take this newer information into account is only perpetuating an unfair and irrational fear of those HIV positive individuals who pro-actively got themselves diagnosed and treated, and who remain responsibly and consistently adherent to their highly effective medications. The constitutional freedom of consenting adults prohibits the self-appointed 'sex police' from having any authority whatsoever to impose their behavioral beliefs on any others who have not invited them to participate. To achieve actual results in harm reduction, the wanna-be 'sex police' should re-direct their uninvited energy toward supporting HIV diagnosis and treatment programs. THAT is the optimum way to stop the spread of HIV infection. The vast majority of HIV infection is originating from undiagnosed and untreated individuals who are contagious due to harboring a high in vivo viral load.
-
11/16/2011 7:58:00 PM
We can talk theory all we want, but who is going to pay for this policing? And what does it really mean? Will police and/or public health officials be at parties taking photos to use as evidence? Will the guilty go to jail? And how does that jive with the overcrowding already in California prisons? And what is the crime? Will anyone who engages in barebacking be arrested? Will it only be when someone involved is positive? Does this mean that the HIV status of every person in the city will be kept in a database? Will that be public or private? Who will pay for the maintenance of such a database?
People talk about the burden of the HIV+ on society, which I don't see because everyone I know in the city who is positive doesn't take one cent of public assistance for any drug they take even if it's plain old Lipitor or something. What kind of burden will this policing place on us?
-
Rudyinbama 11/16/2011 8:49:00 AM
Absolute idiocy.
Almost an entire generation of gay men went to their deaths because of unprotected sex and the unwillingness of anyone to listen to reason.
Somewhere, a new microbe is evolving, and it will happen all over again.
-
Lm 11/16/2011 8:13:00 AM
it is indeed your "right" to bareback all you like,dear Lucas.....it is also your right to pay your own med bills and NOT get angry at others when they don't wish to spend their taxes on lazy barebacking folks.thanks.
-
11/16/2011 4:39:00 AM
You need to re-read my comment. I said "suffering from drug addiction" but "living with HIV". I chose my words carefully.
But how dare you hide behind "homophobia" and gay rights. We were never fighting for the right of gay men to be selfish pricks who care more about their own instant gratification than the health and well-being of themselves, their partners and their community. All the people who died of this disease would love to have a second chance. They would be appalled by what is going on in the gay community today. It's like they died for nothing. Barebacking is not the "progress gay men have fought for." It is nothing but internalized homophobia. Too many gay men have internalized the idea their lives and the lives of other gay men are not worth anything. I'm reminded of the old Civil Rights chant, "I am somebody." You are somebody. You are not just a "cum dump" to be used and discarded and neither are your sexual partners. We are so much better than this, or at least we should be.
I'll quote Larry Kramer:
"Of course people have to get scared. I have said this since day one and i say it today. They need to be scared into using condoms, into getting tested, into being responsible human beings. Nothing so far has been able to bring a sufficient result to these requirements. Why can't anyone see that? Why can't our oldest AIDS organization see that?"
-
11/16/2011 4:02:00 AM
It's almost impossible to be "pure" when it come to bareback porn. That's one of the things that has to change. Even some safe-sex studios, like Raging Stallion, are owned by companies like AEBN (the straight porn company that owns Naked Sword) which streams videos from bareback and non-bareback studios. Supporting Raging Stallion (which I do) is like buying Miller Beer (which I also do) but boycotting Coors even though they are now owned by the same company. It's purely a symbolic gesture. Coors won and for now at least, the bareback porn companies are winning too. But the fight is just beginning in earnest.
-
11/16/2011 4:01:00 AM
Unfortunately I don't think there is any distributor of porn from multiple studios that doesn't distribute bareback. I recently complained to gaydar for having bareback porn on their hookup site while promoting safe sex on gaydar radio but their porn site is run by a third party. In response to my complaint they got the third party company to remove most (but not all) bareback videos on the gaydar porn site, although blast emails still go out promoting bareback movies (it's sent to all subscribers of all of their sites but the name of the site is customized as are the links which go to different sites). When you click on the links (on the email for the gaydar site) you get a message that says "this video is no longer available." Why they can't just stop the email for gaydar members, I don't know. Of course they are still giving money to a company that promotes barebacking, they are just (however unsuccessfully) hiding the evidence. Still, I give them credit for not having bareback porn go out under their name and yes I need to follow suit.
-
11/16/2011 4:01:00 AM
Unfortunately I don't think there is any distributor of porn from multiple studios that doesn't distribute bareback. I recently complained to gaydar.net for having bareback porn on their site while promoting safe sex on gaydar radio but their porn site is run by a third party. In response to my complaint they got the third party company to remove most (but not all) bareback videos on the gaydar porn site, although blast emails still go out promoting bareback movies (it's sent to all subscribers of all of their sites but the name of the site are customized as are the links). When you click on the links (on the email for the gaydar site) you get a message that says "this video is no longer available." Why they can't just stop the email for gaydar members, I don't know. Of course they are still giving money to a company that promotes barebacking, they are just (however unsuccessfully) trying to hide the evidence.
It's almost impossible to be "pure" when it come to bareback porn. That's one of the things that has to change. Even some safe-sex studios, like Raging Stallion, are owned by companies like AEBN (the straight porn company that owns Naked Sword) which streams videos from bareback and non-bareback studios. Supporting Raging Stallion (which I do) is like buying Miller Beer (which I also do) but boycotting Coors even though they are now the owned by the same company. It's purely a symbolic gesture. Coors won and for now at least, the bareback porn companies are winning too. But the fight is just beginning in earnest.
-
11/16/2011 4:00:00 AM
Actually a good point. My site is a gay mainstream film review site. TLA is one of the 2 major gay-owned distributors of gay and other mainstream films. When I started it, they had a much clearer separation of the porn vs. mainstream film sites and in any case, I wasn't very focused on bareback porn so I don't know how much bareback they sold back in those days (early 2000s). In fact I haven't made enough commissions to garner my first check yet (the minimum is $25), and none of the movies I have made commissions on were bareback. I have removed the main TLA link and will replace it with Wolfe Video, which I just signed up with. The problem is Wolfe have a lot fewer gay movies and no porn at all. I have asked TLA if I can refuse any commissions from bareback porn but they did not respond so I am, regrettably, going to have to end the affiliation.
-
11/16/2011 3:58:00 AM
Actually a good point. My site is a gay mainstream film review site (featuring review from my friend and roommate David Lamble, the BAR freelance film critic). TLA is one of the 2 major gay-owned distributors of gay and other mainstream films. When I started it, they had a much clearer separation of the porn vs. mainstream film sites and in any case, I wasn't very focused on bareback porn so I don't know how much bareback they sold back in those days (early 2000s). In factI haven't made enough commissions to garner my first check yet (the minimum is $25), and none of the movies I have made commissions on were bareback. The only money I have made has been from Amazon (which has its own issues) and I had to remove them because they cut off all their CA affiliates because of the state tax issue. They have since reversed that and I haven't updated the site yet. When I update the site to add back Amazon I will replace TLA with Wolf Video, which I just signed up with. The problem is they have a lot fewer gay movies and no porn at all. I have asked TLA if I can refuse any commissions from bareback porn but they did not respond (why should they bother with someone who hasn't made even $25 in commissions). So regrettably I am going to have to remove those links.
Unfortunately I don't think there is any distributor of porn from multiple studios that doesn't distribute bareback. I recently complained to gaydar.net for having bareback porn on their site while promoting safe sex on gaydar radio but their porn site is run by a third party. In response to my complaint they got the third party company to remove most (but not all) bareback videos on the gaydar porn site, although blast emails still go out promoting bareback movies (it's sent to all subscribers of all of their sites but the name of the site are customized as are the links). When you click on the links (on the email for the gaydar site) you get a message that says "this video is no longer available." Why they can't just stop the email for gaydar members, I don't know. Of course they are still giving money to a company that promotes barebacking, they are just (however unsuccessfully) trying to hide the evidence.
It's almost impossible to be "pure" when it come to bareback porn. That's one of the things that has to change. Even some safe-sex studios, like Raging Stallion, are owned by companies like AEBN (the straight porn company that owns Naked Sword) which streams videos from bareback and non-bareback studios. Supporting Raging Stallion (which I do) is like buying Miller Beer (which I also do) but boycotting Coors even though they are now the owned by the same company. It's purely a symbolic gesture. Coors won and for now at least, the bareback porn companies are winning too. But the fight is just beginning in earnest.
-
11/16/2011 3:56:00 AM
Actually a good point. Claudesplace.com is a gay mainstream film review site (featuring review from my friend and roommate David Lamble, the BAR freelance film critic). TLA is one of the 2 major gay-owned distributors of gay and other mainstream films. When I started it, they had a much clearer separation of the porn vs. mainstream film sites and in any case, I wasn't very focused on bareback porn so I don't know how much bareback they sold back in those days (early 2000s). In factI haven't made enough commissions to garner my first check yet (the minimum is $25), and none of the movies I have made commissions on were bareback. The only money I have made has been from Amazon (which has its own issues) and I had to remove them because they cut off all their CA affiliates because of the state tax issue. They have since reversed that and I haven't updated the site yet. When I update the site to add back Amazon I will replace TLA with Wolf Video, which I just signed up with. The problem is they have a lot fewer gay movies and no porn at all. I have asked TLA if I can refuse any commissions from bareback porn but they did not respond (why should they bother with someone who hasn't made even $25 in commissions). So regrettably I am going to have to remove those links.
-
11/16/2011 3:55:00 AM
Actually a good point. Claudesplace.com is a gay mainstream film review site (featuring review from my friend and roommate David Lamble, the BAR freelance film critic). TLA is one of the 2 major gay-owned distributors of gay and other mainstream films. When I started it, they had a much clearer separation of the porn vs. mainstream film sites and in any case, I wasn't very focused on bareback porn so I don't know how much bareback they sold back in those days (early 2000s). In factI haven't made enough commissions to garner my first check yet (the minimum is $25), and none of the movies I have made commissions on were bareback. The only money I have made has been from Amazon (which has its own issues) and I had to remove them because they cut off all their CA affiliates because of the state tax issue. They have since reversed that and I haven't updated the site yet. When I update the site to add back Amazon I will replace TLA with Wolf Video, which I just signed up with. The problem is they have a lot fewer gay movies and no porn at all. I have asked TLA if I can refuse any commissions from bareback porn but they did not respond (why should they bother with someone who hasn't made even $25 in commissions). So regrettably I am going to have to remove those links.
Unfortunately I don't think there is any distributor of porn from multiple studios that doesn't distribute bareback. I recently complained to gaydar.net for having bareback porn on their site while promoting safe sex on gaydar radio but their porn site is run by a third party. In response to my complaint they got the third party company to remove most (but not all) bareback videos on the gaydar porn site, although blast emails still go out promoting bareback movies (it's sent to all subscribers of all of their sites but the name of the site are customized as are the links). When you click on the links (on the email for the gaydar site) you get a message that says "this video is no longer available." Why they can't just stop the email for gaydar members, I don't know. Of course they are still giving money to a company that promotes barebacking, they are just (however unsuccessfully) trying to hide the evidence.
It's almost impossible to be "pure" when it come to bareback porn. That's one of the things that has to change. Even some safe-sex studios, like Raging Stallion, are owned by companies like AEBN (the straight porn company that owns Naked Sword) which streams videos from bareback and non-bareback studios. Supporting Raging Stallion (which I do) is like buying Miller Beer (which I also do) but boycotting Coors even though they are now the owned by the same company. It's purely a symbolic gesture. Coors won and for now at least, the bareback porn companies are winning too. But the fight is just beginning in earnest.
-
Madison1769 11/16/2011 1:03:00 AM
WTF. You have an ad on your website for TLA video. One of the largest distributors of bareback porn. Claude Wayne you are a Hypocrite. You yourself are trying to earn money from bareback porn.
-
Lmontgomery17 11/16/2011 12:58:00 AM
My name is Lucas I am HIV positive. I am NOT suffering. Your comments that people with HIV are "suffering" is the most disgusting thing I have read on here. Your comments are extremely homophobic. You appear to be completely out of touch with the gay community. Requiring gay men to wear a condom goes completely against our freedoms as Americans and against all the progress gay men have fought for.
-
11/15/2011 8:31:00 PM
When 25% of the gay male population in SF is suffering from drug addiction (like 25% are now living with HIV) perhaps I'll consider it. Besides which, there is a connection between the two. One of the worst effects of drug use among gay men is that it leads to HIV infections. As Kevin Maloney says below, drugs like Crystal Meth often go hand and hand with barebacking. The promoters of these more public parties like to say they ask people who are tweaked out to leave but do they really or is that just for public consumption? I certainly haven't witnessed it, which is not to say it hasn't happened.
The question I have for you is why don't you use your energy and passion to demonstrate that safe sex can be hot and fun. There are other ways to be "transgressive" and push boundaries. In many ways barebacking is a sign of laziness and lack of creativity on the part of porn producers. The only people you are rebelling against are people who are trying to keep our community healthy. In fact you are playing right into the hands of our enemies by providing evidence that gay men are nothing but disease carriers and spreaders who can not control their sexual urges even to the point of wearing a condom.
How are you going to feel if something new comes along, either a new strain of drug-resistant HIV or a new sexually transmitted deadly virus altogether. My generation stupidly believed that there was nothing worth worrying about that a shot of antibiotics couldn't cure. We were naive but there is no excuse now. You know who will be the first victims - bareback porn stars. We lost almost all of the porn stars of the 70s to HIV. Why would you risk history repeating itself?
The reason people talk about not using shame is because in their hearts they know this is not something to be proud of. There will come a time when you get older and you are reflecting on your life. Do you really think you will be happy with the choices you are now making?
-
11/15/2011 7:33:00 PM
This is why I have a problem with serosorting as a public health strategy (even if it makes sense on an individual level for some people). It almost provides a perverse incentive for people to seroconvert because then they can have all of the unsafe sex they want. Just take a few pills a day (or maybe just one!) and you can party like it's 1979 all over again. Why should anyone ever wear a condom again?
If you feel like fighting back please join the anti-bareback group on Facebook.
-
11/15/2011 5:37:00 PM
Why not spend your energy and passion about saving the Gay community by doing something about drug abuse? You are quick to point the finger, but the real reality is that our community is suffering more from drug abuse than HIV.
-
11/15/2011 6:29:00 AM
For those who agree with me and are ready to take action, I just started a group on Facebook called Anti-Bareback. I wanted it to be called Anti-bareback because this is for people who really want to take on the culture of barebacking and combat its growing mainstreaming. I just saw on Facebook that one of my favorite bars, The Edge, had a Treasure Island Media party a few weeks ago. It's time for responsible members of the community to push back and say, not in our name. It is not cool. Join me.
-
11/14/2011 4:42:00 PM
If you want to know what I'm talking about by meaningful conversation, I mean things like David Halpern's "What Do Gay Men Really Want?," which I disagree with vehemently but I think makes some detailed, complex points. There's also Tim Dean's "Unlimited Intimacy," where he makes points the complete opposite of Halpern's. I still disagree with much of what he says, but I like how in depth he goes. I put myself between those two.
And while we're at it, why not "Policiing Public Sex," which is what this article is really about? What kind of policing should we do of ourselves and/or have others do of us? That book goes a long way at answering that question, and I agree with most of it.
Oh, and I'll throw in Michael Bronski's "Why Gay Men Can't Talk about Sex." It may be the best thing written on the subject. I agree with every word he says.
-
11/14/2011 4:51:00 AM
"I just can't believe how we recycle the same points over and over rather than engaging in deeper, more meaningful conversations that go beyond shame and pointing fingers. We've seen how well that works. "
the problem as I see it is that we HAVE been having those deeper meaningful conversations about this for years-and the points don't change because the points are still, fundamentally the same ones we were discussing 25+ years ago. We are still not willing to take responsibility for ourselves. How much more meaning do you want? More meaningful conversation isn't suddenly going to get those uninterested in the discussion to come around. I wonder how many more men need to become infected while we wait for some magic conversation? The problem is neither the shame/finger pointing OR meaningful conversation is working.
It is easy to point to a problem that is difficult to solve and say "this system is flawed." because anyone can be vague. saying what the flaw is, that is work because it means you have to identify something and say 'this is wrong.' and stand by it. What it seems like is there are a lot of people saying "Gee, this problem is really hard because we have to act responsible to one another in the broader scheme of being part of this community." and that is...for lots of gay men...work! why should they have to care about anyone else but themselves, right? where do we get off, acting like others should give a damn about our lives and feelings and...or waitaminute...I thought it was 1982 there for a moment and we were fighting for our lives still.
Wait...we are. this is as much of a fight for our existence as it was 30 years ago its just that now...the enemy is US.
-
11/13/2011 9:23:00 PM
Well there are limits to personal behavior, even in a free society. No one is advocating outlawing any truly private sexual behavior but the government has every right to regulate business practices, whether it be requiring condom use on porn sets or requiring sex clubs to ask anyone who refuses to wear a condom to leave, just as they do for people who insist on smoking.
SF could make it a condition for non-profit organizations which receive city funds to not in any way be associated with the promotion of unsafe sex including giving away bareback porn, partnering with companies like Naked Sword which stream bareback porn online and even receiving money from organizations which take money from bareback porn companies. It is ridiculous that the Folsom Street Fair allows not only bareback porn companies to promote their wares (except for one) but gives BarebackRT.com one of the most prominent positions in the fair to hand out invitations to a bareback sex party. And then they give that money to AIDS organizations, and you wonder why those organizations don't take a stronger stance against barebacking. Their hands are not clean. It would be like the American Heart Association taking money from Cigarette companies. You can't serve two masters.
Peer group pressure plays a big role in the decision to use condoms or not as does signals from mainstream gay culture. When the city turns a blind eye to unsafe sex in sex clubs, when AIDS groups accept money from bareback porn companies and then refuse to condemn it, when the B.A.R. accepts ads from Factory Videos for new models, when a prominent SOMA bar holds parties for Treasure Island Media and shows bareback porn, a message gets sent. It's time to send a different message.
-
11/13/2011 8:19:00 PM
Sometimes things are better left "invisible" or "underground' where most people won't see it.
This is a point I do not think I can ever agree with. To use your child porn example, it is becoming more and more difficult to stop because of new technologies and new markets (sex tourism). I'm not saying it should be legal; it should not. But it's invisibility and underground nature makes those who fight sex trafficking and child porn work harder than they should. I don't care if the market is reduced. As long as one child is victimized, we need to fight it publicly and directly, not just be glad it's not as much as it used to be (which I also don't believe).
It's the same with barebacking, whether in porn or at parties (private or public). I want to have the conversation about why some bareback and some don't. I want to have the conversation about how we should/could respond individually, communally, and politically. But, I'll repeat again, shaming and finger pointing are not conversing.
-
11/13/2011 8:12:00 PM
The message does work. It just does not work for everyone. If you wish to distill what I'm saying to a soundbite (though I think our soundbite culture is part of the problem), then you said it best when you said "it doesn't make it right, just right for you." Exactly.
We should educate. The message does reach some people. We just should not expect education to be an automatic panacea that will lead to massive, communal change. It will change some but not all.
I'm not tired of talking about AIDS or AIDS education or I would not have made it one of the centers of my life. I just can't believe how we recycle the same points over and over rather than engaging in deeper, more meaningful conversations that go beyond shame and pointing fingers. We've seen how well that works.
-
11/13/2011 8:00:00 PM
Sorry but they ARE the bad guys. They are profiting from the promotion of unsafe sex. They are doing this to make money and they don't care how many young gays get hurt in the process. This is equivalent to "binge and purge" videos which promote eating disorders. I want to drive them underground, way underground. More like child porn than drugs, which, while still existing, is completely out of view of most people. The hardcore are always going to be there. It's everyone else that I'm worried about.
This laissez faire attitude isn't working. The bareback promoters are only getting more and more brazen. It used to be only hookups and parties at people's homes or hotel rooms. Now it's at public sex clubs and Palm Spring resorts that attract hundreds of people at a time, some of whom would never attend one of those more private parties. Enough is enough. To quote Star Trek's Captain Jean-Luc Picard, "The line must be drawn here! This far, and no farther!"
-
11/13/2011 7:31:00 PM
I think porn is actually very similar to drugs. Its another example of a human development that hijacks are normal biological pathways flooding our system with dopamine and creating extremely pleasure that is self-reinforcing. Very few men at least look at porn and then stop. Its usually an escalating process of more porn and more extreme fetishizations or extreme versions of whatever the person is turned-on by in an attempt to induce these extremely pleasurable sexually heightened experiences that overtime fade by watching the same porn over and over.
There is actually quite a bit of porn addiction out there. All the addictions function this way. Our biology did not evolve to be blasted with these extremely highly-concentrated pleasures. It totally fucks with our system. Historically pleasurable human experiences were harder to come by and not as intense.
Now we have bigmacs, cocaine, and porn....And no surprise we're fat, highly addicted, and experience chronic states of the natural consequences of this dopamine speaks: depression and anxiety.
-
11/13/2011 7:22:00 PM
This is America and it last time I checked its still a free country. If these men want to risk their lives over a 1mm piece of plastic, their stupidity and recklessness is their god-given right. Education and prevention are the strategies. You can't outlaw personal behavior.
I do agree that its unfair that the rest of us have to support the consequences (i.e. HIV services, medication, disability, etc for those that end-up contracting HIV) of reckless behavior but I don't see any way around that at this point.
As someone who has worked in an AIDS hospice, let me tell you there are some young folk there dying of AIDS. Its usually related to crystal meth addiction and lack of medication compliance or some biological predisposition towards intolerance to the retrovirals. So yeah barebacking can end-up with a death sentence.
The lack of leadership in the gay community is unfortunate. There is a total inversion where the more senior and mature folks with the wisdom and experience are ignored and marginalized while the young men are idolized and yet they don't have the experience or knowledge to take care of themselves. I always thought that with homophobia disappearing around the country we would finally have a generation of gay men growing up without the trauma of the gay experience growing up for the rest of us. As such I thought they would be psychologically more healthy, less-damaged, less self-hating and as a result, less self-destructive. But it sure doesn't seem to be the case.
-
11/13/2011 7:08:00 PM
People are going to have bareback sex if they want to have it. Banning it and making BB porn illegal or whatever is only going to drive it underground and then HIV will surely spread. Just look at the war on drugs has it stopped people from doing them? Now they just have to seek them from illegal sources and you need look no further than Mexico to see how the underground market is thriving for the cartels.
Sex and porn are not the same as drugs exactly but there are many similarities. Maybe the people who run barebackRT are not the bad guys cause you can find safe sex info on there. At least it's available to those who seek. which would not be the case if hookups were being arranged in some other secretive fashion. Just look at the number of users BB sites your not going to make them all start wearing condoms. So harm reduction, education and focusing on finding a cure seem a much more effective way and in the end successful way to lower the number of new HIV infections.
-
11/13/2011 6:39:00 PM
"Everyone is throwing around the idea of teaching men to be safe as though, once taught, everyone will want to do it. I have not seen that in over twenty years of AIDS education or just plain living."
Glad you are the expert on us all Nels. what is your point here? You can agree with yourself? Gay men don't listen/learn well either? I've been reading news about this longer than 20-something years and you sound like you are older than me. take a few years off there? They have known this was primarily sexually transmitted since at least 1983 and talked about it well before that.
sigh...if you want to make your own point, then agree with yourself, that is fine, but it doesn't make it right, just right for you. Just sticking your head in the sand isn't going to help those people who DO benefit from education-and THAT is who the messages are aimed after. Maybe the message didn't reach you Nels, or you don't want to engage the issue because you have already made your decision on your way to handle it? but as someone who was young enough to have sex then but chose to wait a while and find out what I was up against, it DID work for me-and here I am 30 years later still negative. I get sick and tired of hearing guys like you in this town say "The message doesn't work" because it doesn't work across the board for everyone. Just because you are tired of having to deal with it doesn't mean we should not be educating people still and having this debate-and still putting regulations out there. regardless of your status, or your friends status, people are still dying. Not educating them, not having any protections out there for those who are too young or under educated isn't going to keep them for seroconverting either. So what? We do nothing? Maybe in the community you live in its cool to stop caring about other gay men because you don't see yourself having a stake in the way their lives run their course but this IS a community and we're all in this together. The decisions WE make affect us ALL eventually. If you smoke, you can quit. If you over eat or are fat, you can diet and lose weight. Once you have HIV you have it forever, and not everyone can take the pills, or handle the other meds and side effects. All the behaviors you list in comparison are relatively low risk activities-only when they are abused do they lead to permanent health disorders and disease. One hamburger doesn't give you heart disease you can never get over.
-
11/13/2011 6:33:00 PM
Just because the government once (and in many cases still does) oppressed does not mean every action of every government is not in our best interests. Each law and regulation must be viewed on its own merits. Just as I, as a black man, despise black people who use racism and past oppression to justify destructive behavior, the same is true of LGBT people. San Francisco (one of the least homophobic governments on the planet) saved the lives of many gay men (myself, perhaps being one of them) when they required condom use for anal sex in public places. By the way, the only "punishment" was to the business (the threat of being closed down, which is now completely gone). The individuals were only asked to leave if they refused to put on a condom. I am only asking that those rules be enforced again.
As a liberal I fully support government regulations to protect workers from unsafe working conditions, even where the workers might "consent" to those conditions. People will "consent" to anything to get or keep a job. The original reason given for prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants was to protect employees who did not have a choice about being there. Likewise, I support the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's attempts to mandate that porn companies require condom use during anal or vaginal sex. It is completely hypocritical for any liberal (which you may or may not be, I am not making any assumptions) to oppose that while supporting similar rules in other situations. Indeed, it's amazing how many liberals sound like Tea Party anti-government conservatives when it comes to this issue.
-
11/13/2011 6:30:00 PM
I'm sorry. I did not mean to call you names. I am a proud leftist myself (so I hardly consider that an insult) and based on your blog which included participation in OWS and other things, you certainly seem on the liberal side of things and these days that's considered leftist. But fine, let's not deal with labels, let's just deal with what you have said.
Sometimes things are better left "invisible" or "underground' where most people won't see it. Child porn, for example. It still exists but at least most average people who are not actively seeking it will never see it. That, in turns, reduces the market.
Bareback porn, hook-up sites, private parties and now very public parties held in sex clubs, hotels and clothing optional resorts have enticed many young men into a lifestyle that they would have otherwise never encountered. See Kevin Maloney's post above and follow the links to his blog to read his story. I never encountered the activities you described, partly because there weren't any bathhouses open in SF at the time and I chose not to go elsewhere but to confine myself to the legal sex clubs that were open at the time where barebacking at least was not allowed. Even at the place you describe, someone with an IV might have found someone to suck them off but I doubt there were many HIV- men who would let him fuck them. Those that would were clearly destined to get HIV anyway. It's not the hardcore that I'm concerned about, it's people like Kevin who can easily get enticed into this world.
-
11/13/2011 6:27:00 PM
There are things that influence that decision and anyone involved in AIDS education should not be neutral about it. Bareback porn is like a pro-HIV propaganda force within the gay community aimed at undoing the work of AIDS organizations. It is an enemy of this community. Some of it is not even coming from within the community anymore as straight-owned porn companies have gotten into the act. It is no different than "binge and purge" videos and deserves the same contempt.
The problem with "take responsibility for yourself" is that it is the rest of us through our taxes and premiums which have to pay most of the bill. Yes, the same can be said of those other activities but, with the exception of wearing seat belts or helmets (which are mandated by law), none of the others have such a relatively easy solution as a condom. Bareback porn is similar to Cigarette advertising, which has been made illegal. The companies that promote it are no better than the Cigarette companies.
-
11/13/2011 6:15:00 PM
I'm sorry. I did not mean to call you names. I am a proud leftist myself (so I hardly consider that an insult) and based on your blog which included participation in OWS and other things, you certainly seem on the liberal side of things and these days that's considered leftist. But fine, let's not deal with labels, let's just deal with what you have said.
Sometimes things are better left "invisible" or "underground' where most people won't see it. Child porn, for example. It still exists but at least most average people who are not actively seeking it will never see it. That, in turns, reduces the market. See Dan Savages excellent column on the commonalities between bareback porn and child porn:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/bareback_porn_child_porn
Bareback porn, hook-up sites, private parties and now very public parties held in sex clubs, hotels and clothing optional resorts have enticed many young men into a lifestyle that they would have otherwise never encountered. See Kevin Maloney's post above and follow the links to his blog to read his story. I never encountered the activities you described, partly because there weren't any bathhouses open in SF at the time and I chose not to go elsewhere but to confine myself to the legal sex clubs that were open at the time where barebacking at least was not allowed. Even at the place you describe, someone with an IV might have found someone to suck them off but I doubt there were many HIV- men who would let him fuck them. Those that would were clearly destined to get HIV anyway. It's not the hardcore that I'm concerned about, it's people like Kevin who can easily get enticed into this world. I completely share his righteous anger and join his call to "rise up."
Just because the government once (and in many cases still does) oppressed does not mean every action of every government is not in our best interests. Each law and regulation must be viewed on its own merits. Just as I, as a black man, despise black people who use racism and past oppression to justify destructive behavior, the same is true of LGBT people. San Francisco (one of the least homophobic governments on the planet) saved the lives of many gay men (myself, perhaps being one of them) when they required condom use for anal sex in public places. By the way, the only "punishment" was to the business (the threat of being closed down, which is now completely gone). The individuals were only asked to leave if they refused to put on a condom. I am only asking that those rules be enforced again.
As a liberal/leftist I fully support government regulations to protect workers from unsafe working conditions, even where the workers might "consent" to those conditions. People will "consent" to anything to get or keep a job. The original reason given for prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants was to protect employees who did not have a choice about being there. Likewise, I support the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's attempts to mandate that porn companies require condom use during anal or vaginal sex. It is completely hypocritical for any liberal (which you may or may not be, I am not making any assumptions) to oppose that while supporting similar rules in other situations. Indeed, it's amazing how many liberals sound like Tea Party anti-government conservatives when it comes to this issue.
-
11/13/2011 5:41:00 PM
Everyone is throwing around the idea of teaching men to be safe as though, once taught, everyone will want to do it. I have not seen that in over twenty years of AIDS education or just plain living.
In the 1980s, the mantra was that you take responsibility for yourself and no one else. Now, we've turned that around and expect others to take responsibility for us. Well, I'm not going in that direction. I will still take care of myself and have sex with consenting adults. If we disagree on condom usage, we'll each move on. It's not about being HIV-, HIV+, or someone who has never, ever wanted to be tested and doesn't know. It's about choosing where you want to be in life and engaging in activities that will help you get there. It's the same kind of activity that people engage in who smoke, eat foods that are supposedly unhealthy, choose not to wear seat belts or helmets, and so many other activities that comprise our daily lives.
-
11/13/2011 5:35:00 PM
Where did they say that "the barebacking community is only confined to the HIV positive community"? I read them as saying "the barebacking community is a HIV positive community." Okay, the "a" should be an "an," but their point is not about "confinement" but about how the barebacking community and the HIV-positive community intersect (and not overlap). There are parties that are supposed to only be for HIV+ men. Is that what we want, to keep everyone in little groups? Why not do what William F. Buidkley suggested in the 80s and tattoo everyone who is HIV+?
-
Francesca George 11/13/2011 5:28:00 PM
This article resonated with me, as I've held internal anger at these young lads that throw caution to the wind, end up HIV-positive, and then drain all the resources of our community to pay for their support systems, medications, and various other programs. They don't have that crystal-clear memory of watching someone they love waste away and die; that is something I can never forget.
I'm reflecting on the last 4 friends that I know who have turned positive in the last few years. They aren't stupid, they knew the risks, they participated anyway, and they turned positive. The three older men aren't happy that they turned positive, to be sure. But they accept that they are, and deal with it. The youngest one - I just don't get. In some ways, I think he now feels he has a "badge of honour" that he wears. He can hang now with positive men, have reckless sex, it doesn't matter anymore. It makes me sad.
Yes, we are the city of freedom, and we allow people to make free decisions - good and bad decisions. But as as city, we are then expected to all support the consequences. I don't buy into that. For a time, it got me so irate, the irresponsible behaviour of our community, that I thought of halting my donations to the AIDS groups that comprise probably 90% of our fundraising efforts. In the end, I continue - not everyone became positive through acts of neglect and recklessness, and I have to remember that.
I'm starting to ramble. I'm much calmer on this issue that I was in the past - inevitability setting in? I've just focused my concerns elsewhere. After all, it is not my life. But when the funding runs out, when the meds stop working ... I'm not sure anyone is prepared to handle that.
-
Francesca George 11/13/2011 5:14:00 PM
Your assumption that the barebacking community is only confined to the HIV positive community is falacious. If that were true, the HIV infection rate would either be stagnant or decreasing.
-
11/13/2011 5:10:00 PM
We come from very different backgrounds because I do remember sex parties without condoms in the late 80s and early 90s. I remember the guy who turned 25 in 1992 and wanted twenty-five loads in him that night. And he got them. Guys would show up at bathhouses with IV poles in their arms and find guys to suck them off. The term barebacking and the porn that followed created nothing. It did take acts that were previously invisible and made them visible. To me, that was great because we could finally talk about what was going on and explore why.
You say "Silence=Death." That is what I am trying to avoid here. If we demand that the government come in and protect us from ourselves, we will be forcing people who want to engage in these activities into a place where they will have to do them so secretly that we will be back to where we were twenty years ago when people pretended it wasn't happening when it was. There was a time when the government was happy to come in and "protect us from ourselves." In 1986, police walked right into a gay man's bedroom and arrested him for having oral sex with a willing adult partner. The case went all the way up the Supreme Court, and the police won. That case might have been stricken down in 2003, but this is a slippery slope. Once you open the doors to government intervention you may not be able to close them.
Also, below, you took issue with comments that labeled you a certain way (the comments were removed before I could read them). With that in mind, please don't just label me as a "leftist gay college professor" and then tell me how that means I should respond and what I should respond about. I'm not surprised you have strict expectations of me and my behavior because that seems to be your style, to have strict expectations. And when they are not met, you will go to a government agency like the public health department and expect them to do things for you. I did not call you names. Please do not call me names.
-
Clarknbc 11/13/2011 5:10:00 PM
Normalizing this type of behavior has all sorts of consequences. Throat cancer is at an all time high for white males. Anal cancer is growing at very high rates. HPV is a known cause of the spreading of these cancers. Hepatitis is not easy to live with either. These young people all think it won't happen to them. Orgies from coast to coast, somehow I don't think you will ever make most people think this type of behavior is normal, because it is not and never will be.
A lot of these men are bi-sexual and bring these diseases home to unsuspecting hetero-sexual wives, and girlfriends. So we all have a stake in this, not just gays.
Can somebody tell me what birth control pills have to do with the comment from Factory Videos, who is moving their filming to Arizona, to get away from California's OSHA Laws?
OSHA (Occupational Safety laws that state you can't have employees exposed to blood borne pathogens? Do they think that these laws won't be inacted pretty quickly when all this exposure and bragging about what they are doing comes to the forefront of the Arizona lawmakers? So does it say in these coast to coast orgies that you must be HIV positive to participate? I don't think so. What about "Reckless transmission of HIV" is where I would file this under.
-
11/13/2011 4:26:00 PM
These websites have become CATYLYSTS to behaviors which lead to HIV, Hepatitis C and other STI’s. Mario and company via BBRTS and numerous other initiatives are promoting bareback sex through what I would call criminal promotion. Event space is being secured in locations across the country, advertising such events to the public, and charging people via PayPal and with cash to enter these offline parties. A public that is filled with vulnerable young adults that falls into the web of these promotions. This site and other are being promoted on Facebook, twitter, and other social media outlets where the most vulnerable young adults hang out. I speak from experience on this topic, because when I was young and exploring my sexuality I fell into the traps of "online dating" and delved into this underground culture in the gay community of sex and drugs that are intertwined in these "virtual bathhouses". These sites can be directly tied to the increase in the MSM community of HIV, Hepatitis C, and other STI's. These sites are a stain on the gay community and it is time we rise up to stomp out the people and websites behind these promotions, by continually placing pressure on these people, venues and websites. Further, we must continue to educate the public on the risks of bareback sex. We must not punish those who choose to partake in such activities, but I will not stand idly by and watch these events take place, and be promoted in the public domain. I will not allow a vulnerable young adult from falling into the traps on these promotions. Will you rise up with me?
-
11/13/2011 11:16:00 AM
You've got the bareback party line down but what it all adds up to are excuses for irresponsible behavior. The fact is, before bareback porn and the drug cocktails, there were very few people who were consciously and repeatedly seeking anal sex without a condom. The reason for that is obvious - gay men were dying all around us, and dying horrible deaths that no one in his right mind would want to go through. People who had the disease had other things on their minds - like survival - and no one would be having unprotected sex with anyone who had any of the visible signs of AIDS, like the purple KS lesions or young men walking around with canes because of peripheral neuropathy.
Sure, people had slip-ups now and then but as the article says barebacking is not the same as occasional unprotected sex. Beginning with coining the term "barebacking" itself, bareback porn created a fetish for unprotected sex and often in its most risky forms. Instead of pulling out and coming on someone's body, which had always been the norm in pre-condom porn, now we had coming inside and then forcing it back out or coming on the ass and then forcing it back in. From "20 Load Weekend" to "50 Load Weekend" to "1000 Load Fuck", the more partners (and/or sperm delivered by turkey basters) the better. Terms like "cum dumpster", a term used to degrade women in straight porn, and "breeding" (talk about heteronormative - gay men are neither women nor horses, the only thing being "bred" is HIV) were introduced to gay porn.
Ignoring barebacking has lead to pain and death. Sometimes conflict is necessary and good. Silence = Death! Have we forgotten that? Shame also can be useful. I don't know how many times I've been at demonstrations where we have yelled "Shame!" at some homophobic or AIDSphobic person or institution. If it is alright to use shame against a straight person who is doing harm to LGBT people, why is it not OK to use it against gay people who are doing harm? In this case, it is not individuals who are having unsafe sex that I want to shame - it is porn companies, video stores, sex clubs and party promoters who are making a profit from the promotion of unsafe sex. There was a time when a leftist gay college professor like yourself (I followed the Disqus links) would have had a more critical analysis of profit-making institutions in the gay community.
-
11/13/2011 4:55:00 AM
This message was supposed to be a reply to Bill.
-
11/13/2011 4:46:00 AM
Thanks.
-
11/13/2011 4:00:00 AM
But you can protect those who have HIV from other diseases, such as Hepatitis C which may or may not be treatable. And you can teach them to be safe with others so they don't knowingly spread it to someone else whose status they don't know? What about other STDs which can become more difficult to treat with HIV in the mix? The basic issue is that the two groups you infer are separate are actually all having sex with one another, the lines as you have them drawn in your head don't match what is actually out there. HIV positive men HAVE spaces, including private parties ALL their own. No one is bashing poz guys-we're out here having sex with you at the baths, sex clubs, parties, etc. If someone is still seroconverting in this day and age-HIV STILL comes from other HIV infected guys, but why is it considered bad form to have accountability in ALL of our community? So only HIV- guys should have to worry about condoms? Or being Safe? or safer than you? C'mon...this is a cop out. You couldn't pass the buck any harder if you tried.
-
11/13/2011 3:40:00 AM
We belive that all people should have the choice to have both protected and unprotected sex. If we create a Sex Police, where will it stop. Should we start promoting sex between gay men should only happen after marriage? We all have the freedom of choice, even women who make the choices themselves on abortion.
-
11/13/2011 3:16:00 AM
Oh, I had to stifle the incredible anger I was feeling most of the time to finish reading this article. While the debate is somewhat differently shaped than it was 30 years ago, the core issue is the same: Gay men cannot and will not regulate themselves-even when forced to do so. Telling them to do so just seems to lead to an "I'll do what I want" approach that has, to date, produced results of severely varying quality and effectiveness. While there are a good number of us who realized early that best defense we had were condoms, there are now groups of people that reduce their effectiveness in our community: young(er), naive, reckless men who didn't watch half their friends die horrible deaths from AIDS 25 years ago and those older, naive, reckless men who both know better and DID watch half their friends die, but either don't care enough anymore to be safe, think they have nothing to lose or those who have already seroconverted and are lucky enough their livers are holding up under the toxic strain of their meds regime to still be having sex at all. And the same faces and personalities are here-anyone who is seen as being critical of these above men is labeled as sex negative, a community boogeyman and traitor to the cause, or just shouted down. The other side says all kind of things to justify their position of sex regardless of regulation, disease and stigma and a HUGE swath of people caught in between them trying to do the right thing but confused by the sex club ads, private parties, community events funded by barebacking events and so on. Plus, the truth is, sex clubs ARE places people are still having unsafe sex. There is a LOT of lip service going on on both sides and too much money being made by both sides for this to stop anytime soon. While gay men have been incredibly brave above dealing with HIV and AIDS, we've also been some of the biggest petulant babies about our 'right' to be irresponsible regarding unsafe sex. Medication has only allowed us the ability to behave sexually like we did before AIDS wiped a lot of us out. other than that, nothing seems to have changed in the last 30 years.
-
Maria 11/13/2011 2:32:00 AM
Great article. I for one am just flabbergasted that people are allowed to transact business by sponsoring sex parties open to the public without strict enforcement of fundamental health standards. HIV is a nasty, nasty virus and to promote its spread for money is just plain evil.
-
11/12/2011 10:32:00 PM
As someone who has been around and having sex since the 80s, who lost my first husband to AIDS as well as numerous friends, I really can't believe we're still having this discussion. People were having sex without condoms way before any porn company had videos showing it, way before barebacking was a word, and way before we had even a tenth of the drugs we have now to combat HIV. If you condemn the practice, it will not disappear. It will just go further underground. Shaming people about their sexual practices (when it's consenting adults with consenting adults) will lead to nothing but more pain, death, and conflict. Lots and lots of people have sex with condoms. Lots of lots of people do not. I'd rather have conversations than point fingers and say the government should step in and do something to "those people."
-
11/12/2011 7:08:00 PM
It kinda shocks me that any gay man would want to fuck bareback with all STD's and crap you can catch. Condoms all the way for me, and I don't care how "popular" bareback becomes.
-
11/12/2011 3:54:00 PM
For my critics out there who disagree with my stance on MSM Websites. I appreciate open dialogue. Let’s keep the conversation going. Mario's empire and BBRTS are coming to an end soon. Sites such as his, and the parties he throws are a stain on the gay community, and people are beggining to take notice.
I take responsibility for my dual diagnosis. I have since day one. It would be ridiculous for me to say MH, A4A, BBRTS, BB, etc…..gave me HIV and Hepatitis C. That is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is these websites have become CATYLYSTS to behaviors which lead to HIV infection and other STI’s.
The facts speak for themselves and one can draw conclusions and inferences based on these facts or ignore them completely. I choose to know the facts, and draw conclusions and inferences based on this data. If you would like to look at this factual data then I invite you to visit http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
It is not facts alone though that have riled me and risen me to speak out about these websites. I speak with passion about this particular issue, because these sites were the catalyst behind my behavior’s and ultimate infections. Just as for so many the “brick and mortar” establishments were in the 80’s and early 90’s.
While, we know that HIV/AIDS is NOT a gay disease, the perception of it being such is still widely perceived, the stigma, unfortunately, 30 years later, is still around today. It’s especially disheartening to all of us in the gay community when numbers come out from the CDC referencing 52 percent of all HIV infections are within the MSM community, and that year after year there is a continual climb within this subset of the population.
Did you know that in the 90’s for a brief period that HIV infections among MSM and overall was declining, and then started skyrocketing in the late 90’s and still today where there has been a steady incline in new infections year after year. Just as those working in HIV/AIDS were beginning to see a glimmer of hope and get somewhat of a handle on this virus; the wheels starting turning backwards. What happened in the 90’s? The Internet; and with the advent of the internet came virtual bath houses.
Someone also had written an anonymous comment that “it’s not the venue; it’s the behavior we need to change”. Well, working on behavior alone is not working. While we have learned to combat this illness from the ideological ways of yesteryear, we must continue to improve upon these methods and create new ways.
I will not give up on this issue, despite what many of my critics say. I will continue to put pressure on these sites, and bring to light what I believe is causing a continual; rise in new HIV infections year after year.
Further discouraging is that these sites are now set up on myspace, facebook, and twitter targeting the MOST at risk young individuals.
If just one vulnerable young adult stays off these sites because of my advocating, then I will be satisfied. I did not ask for these diseases, and I have not asked for this responsibility to take on these websites. I will keep rising up, standing out, and speaking up for what I believe. I hope you have the courage to as well and will stand with me? BBRTS is the small fish to fry, so let's start there. The things this site gets away with is appauling and a slap in the face and an embarrasment in the greater public health picture.
-
BILL 11/12/2011 8:02:00 AM
i applaud you for being so brave and standing up for what you believe.i wish more people would stop pandering to PC tow lines and say what needs to be said...we all have a choice,and if a person choose to repeatedly engage in risky behavior,then they should NOT then also expect every one else to pay their med bills.
-
bill 11/12/2011 7:55:00 AM
i agree that people should have the right to have sex how/and with whom they want...i also believe that if you make the choice to bareback,and then aquire a deadly,or at best,life altering virus from those actions,then it is not my obligation to pay for your meds,with my taxes, for the rest of your life.
-
11/11/2011 9:01:00 PM
I have a job too but this is San Francisco and nobody cares if you are gay or even that you go to sex clubs. What they might care about is that your are defending unsafe sex. You have a morally untenable position, that's why you are hiding and that's why you are resorting to personal attacks against me because you can not defend your position. This is not about me. This is about the health and welfare of a community.
The only thing this issue has in common with abortion is irresponsible men who refuse to wear condoms. Those other STI's don't cause death without the benefit of very expensive medication taken for the rest of your life, medication that other people are paying most of the cost for, whether through taxes or premiums. In SF, around 87% of HIV/AIDS cases are among gay men and many of the other cases involve drug use. Straight sex is not a major factor in HIV/AIDS in SF. You and your fellow bareback defenders are like the motorcyclist who died in a protest against mandatory helmet laws when he lost control of his motorcycle and hit his bare head against a pavement. That will show 'em! I bet his family and friends wish the cops had pulled him over and prevented him from acting so recklessly. No man is an island. Our actions affect other people and society as a whole. We are our brother's keepers. Gay men need to grow up and stop acting like kids who have to have everything they want, even when it does damage to themselves, their partners and society as a whole. The government can't tell you what to do in the privacy of your own home or someone else's. But when you step into a business the city has every right to regulate it when it comes to public health. You can't smoke in there (except in separate rooms), you have to wear shoes even at parties where nudity is required. You can't just do whatever you want. People accept those regulations, they can accept regulations concerning condoms, or they can go elsewhere.
-
best guesst 11/11/2011 8:30:00 AM
there seems to be an odd "political" quotient to most of these comments and, maybe i've missed something, but i feel like rather it was they who missed the point. when it comes down to it, there is a very real risk of DISEASE and possible death, and no amount of dependency on governmental intervention at such a point will alleviate that fact. people need to respect their bodies and have sex in a responsible manner. that doesn't mean an unfun manner. or an unsexy manner. it just means respecting reality and getting off in a way that doesn't get you in the grave. or in a position of taking annoying medication for the next 20+ years of your life.
-
11/11/2011 5:46:00 AM
If you don't have a good argument, attack your opponent's physical appearance. Classy. It says a lot more about you and the kind of person you are than it does about me. At least I've got the courage to use my real name and photo rather than hide behind a stupid handle. I know its a foreign concept to many younger gays, but people who you may not find sexually appealing might still have some valuable information and experience to impart.
As someone who was fighting for gay rights and sexual freedom since quite possibly before you were born, I've earned my right to voice my opinion. There wouldn't be any sex clubs for you to work at if some of us hadn't had the courage to stand up against the attempt to close all sexually-oriented businesses, not just bathhouses. At the time public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of their closure. Even the Milk Club supported that position. Randy Shilts used his position as a Chronicle reporter to whip up public opinion against public sex. At the time I thought that most gay men didn't have a death wish; that if you provided them with the facts and the means to protect themselves, they would. Unfortunately there are too many gay men like you out there who are trying to prove me wrong. I'm beginning to understand, if still not completely agree with, where Randy was coming from.
Along with freedom comes responsibility. If you really care about yourself and the men you are having sex with you don't want to give or get a serious disease with lifetime consequences. A little extra sensation for a few minutes is not worth a lifetime of having to take expensive medications, some with unpleasant side effects - including excess body fat, which to people like you is obviously a fate worse than death. I read a comment on Facebook from someone who said that the ads that have appeared about a drug to combat HIV-related belly fat with pictures of real patients "weirded him out". Good. Finally an HIV drug ad which conveys the message that HIV is still no picnic. Maybe that might just scare some of the body-obsessed gays like you out there because nothing else seems to.
-
Alva 11/10/2011 6:49:00 PM
Remember "Silence Equals Death"?, AIDS researchers getting blood and kitty litter thrown on them by ACTUP? (Rachel Madow). Until the bug chasers change their ways, AIDS research and prevention shouldn't get one bareback cent.
-
11/10/2011 4:04:00 AM
Requiring people to wear seat belts, helmets, not use cell phones while driving, etc. could all be considered the government protecting people (and others) from their own bad habits. The list in this city is longer than most. However, as a 55 year old gay man in SF who is still HIV negative, I'm doing a pretty good job of protecting myself, even with occasional lapses. But I'm human and we all need a little push now and then to do the right thing.
The people I'm really trying to protect are people like the 21 year-old guy at a sex club after one of these parties officially ended who was asking men who wanted to have sex with him to use condoms but when one guy wanted badly not to he gave in but insisted that the other guy pull out before cumming. We all know how well that method works at preventing pregnancy and it is not much better when it comes to HIV. In fact, HIV has been found at higher concentrations in pre-cum than in cum. But a 21 year-old can be forgiven if they aren't aware of that or isn't thinking about all the ramifications of his actions in the heat of the moment. That guy was not someone who would be doing it anyway somewhere else. He clearly wanted to be safe. He probably would not be sneaking around avoiding the monitors if condom use were really required. The idea that someone just starting out in life might end up with a lifetime of being reliant on high-priced drugs, some with serious side effects, is heartbreaking.
I'm also trying to protect the taxpayers and health insurance ratepayers who have to foot much of the bill when someone gets HIV. Given how much money the taxpayers of this city pay for HIV-related services, it is not only reasonable to expect the government to take steps that we know will reduce HIV transmission but it is almost a matter of criminal negligence for it to refuse to do so. The thing is, I suspect that most San Franciscans are completely unaware of the current policy. They probably assume, as I did, that these "guidelines" are requirements (as they used to be) and there is some punishment for the clubs who do not follow them. Hopefully now that this article is out, the Health Dept. (and the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors) will indeed get the "public input" that it says it wants.
-
Guest 11/10/2011 3:37:00 AM
The idea of a new generation of BB sex advocates is sickening. Who are these advocates? Mario Mastriosimone and company/companies? This article was a great promo for his brand. A brand, and multiple websites that are the catylysts to unsafe sex practices resulting in new HIV/AIDS infections. A drug culture of methamphetamine run rampent on these sites, as well as prostitution. And I would question the ages of those on these sites and who attend these parties.
The site BBRTS should be shut down. Would we allow a site called terrorist.com with anti American propaganda to exist? This is a war in Public Health and irresponsible sites promoting the spread of diseases should be shut down!
I am HIV + and contracted Hepatitis C (not through IDU). It would be ridiculous for me to say MH, A4A, BBRTS, BB, etc…..gave me HIV and Hepatitis C. That is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is these websites have become CATYLYSTS to behaviors which lead to HIV infection and other STI’s.
The facts speak for themselves and one can draw conclusions and inferences based on these facts or ignore them completely. I choose to know the facts, and draw conclusions and inferences based on this data. If you would like to look at this factual data then I invite you to visit http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm
It is not facts alone though that have riled me and risen me to speak out about these websites. I speak with passion about this particular issue, because these sites were the catalyst behind my behavior’s and ultimate infections. Just as for so many the “brick and mortar” establishments were in the 80’s and early 90’s.
While, we know that HIV/AIDS is NOT a gay disease, the perception of it being such is still widely perceived, the stigma, unfortunately, 30 years later, is still around today. It’s especially disheartening to all of us in the gay community when numbers come out from the CDC referencing 52 percent of all HIV infections are within the MSM community, and that year after year there is a continual climb within this subset of the population.
Did you know that in the 90’s for a brief period that HIV infections among MSM and overall was declining, and then started skyrocketing in the late 90’s and still today where there has been a steady incline in new infections year after year. Just as those working in HIV/AIDS were beginning to see a glimmer of hope and get somewhat of a handle on this virus; the wheels starting turning backwards. What happened in the 90’s? The Internet; and with the advent of the internet came virtual bath houses.
Someone also had written an anonymous comment that “it’s not the venue; it’s the behavior we need to change”. Well, working on behavior alone is not working. While we have learned to combat this illness from the ideological ways of yesteryear, we must continue to improve upon these methods and create new ways.
I will not give up on this issue, despite what many of my critics say. I will continue to put pressure on these sites, and bring to light what I believe is causing a continual; rise in new HIV infections year after year.
Further discouraging is that these sites are now set up on myspace, facebook, and twitter targeting the MOST at risk young individuals.
If just one vulnerable young adult stays off these sites because of my advocating, then I will be satisfied. I did not ask for these diseases, and I have not asked for this responsibility to take on these websites. I will keep rising up, standing out, and speaking up for what I believe. I hope you have the courage to as well.
I admire the courage of Larry Kramer and all those who like me are out there every day fighting for what they believe. Stay true to yourselves, and be well.
-
Clarknbc 11/10/2011 1:45:00 AM
These party organizers are like the tobacco companies, spreading disease, that the tax payers will have to foot the bill for. They should all be shut down.
-
11/10/2011 12:44:00 AM
Thank you for including us, http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-11-09/news/hiv-aids-porn-barebacking-sex-parties-gay-culture-taylor-friedman/
-
guestXXX 11/09/2011 10:19:00 PM
"In a way, I'm asking the government to protect me from myself," he says."
This is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard!
-
Sirap10021 11/09/2011 10:00:00 PM
When is the last time you saw an ad for AIDS drugs that featured an ugly model? They are always deceptively handsome, unlike in the real world. As more and more of our tax dollars get swallowed up by public employee pensions and related benefits, Social Security and Medicare, there will be less available for these irresponsible men. Many will spend their last few years in poverty, suffering from an assortment of ailments. In some states, even the AIDS drug assistance program is rationed because of lack of money. The problem will only get worse. Even California has stopped paying for most dental services for poor folks.
-
best guesst 11/09/2011 8:25:00 AM
It seems like for awhile there was a concerted effort to make condoms seem "exciting" in themselves; flavors, shapes, colors, patterns, ribs, etc.. If I recall correctly, for several years there was a much more favorful attitude toward wearing condoms during sex.
I read this whole damn article, and throughout it wondered, "why are these hot young sexy things jeopardizing their lives for one or ten night(s) of good sex??" I can't help but wonder if we culturally made condoms a part of our sexual and sensual culture, that we could prevent the spread of many diseases for enough years to actually render many diseases ineffective or inactive and then GO BACK to bare backing. or maybe not even, because condoms are good non-hormonal birth control too!!
