Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Chrisb. I'm not sure where all your anger is coming from, but I do hear your point, Leland and many of us just do not agree.

   You say .." If a gay man is watching TV and sees Reichen with his shirt off, he may actually stop and listen to the message. But most gay men are gonna flip the channel when they see those four fish. Sad, but true."

   First off the only gay men who have a clue who Reichen is are well read men, who read the blogs, not the type who are out clubbing and doing Meth. If they go to movies though they may know who both Whoopie and Sarandon are. What is sad, but true, is that a bitter queen like you has no respect for either woman, who have both been fighting for gay rights and AIDS awareness since the 80's. Also sad is your use of the word fish to describe woman. How do you expect to get others to show gays respect when you show none to women.

   Worse of all is this line "Frankly, when an old woman tells me not to do something, it just makes me want it to do it more."
   I'm sure you must make your Mother proud with that kind of thinking. Then again from your comments it sounds like you did not gain much knowledge from her or anyone else.

   The sad fact is AIDS cases are on the rise, and continue to hit all people, but the highest increase is among gay men, especially those who are using Meth. However we can stop this, and who ever delivers the message, stopping it is the goal.
   

   Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 30, 2006 9:27:21 PM

   
   

2. My my aren't some of us myopic?

   When young gay men begin acting responsibly and prove themselves worthy through their activism, then maybe they can be spokespersons for this message.

   Until this happens, though, the "old women" who have spent years fighting for HIV/AIDS awareness will have to suffice.

   Posted by: mark m | Nov 30, 2006 10:02:23 PM

   
   

3. Personally I just don't believe a condom is the all in all Savior against HIV. Maybe gay men need to rethink our sexual habits. Same for black people. Condoms don't protect against a myriad of diseases in the first place. But its all against risk reduction right? How about thinking about abstinince?

   I know I'm going to get flamed about this but if we can't trust people to not fuck before a life-long relationship why trust people to use condoms everytime?

   Posted by: Damon | Nov 30, 2006 10:07:53 PM

   
   

4. here, here PatrickNYC and Leland. It's painful to see 4 people - regardless of gender or sexual orientation - step off and commit to this cause - and then get played as to whether they are good enough to speak re: AIDS. FYI - they did it. Who knows who else was asked and declined.

   Even more sad than indicting women who have reached out is the pathetic lack of MEN - much less GAY MEN - who will stand up and speak up about this newest form of the scourge. Yes, Yes, Yes - more excuses will be forthcoming as to why we don't have enough role models, who's cute enough to speak to us, etc. The shame is that I truly can't think of a single well-known GAY MAN with enough balls or confidence to step off and speak authoritatively about this - or any - issue. Jake Gyllenhall? Christ - give that a guy fucking break and let's stand up for ourselves for once.

   Posted by: resurrect | Nov 30, 2006 10:11:02 PM

   
   

5. "When young gay men begin acting responsibly and prove themselves worthy through their activism, then maybe they can be spokespersons for this message."

   Bull. It wasn't our generation who bought HIV/AIDS to surface. I'm sick and tired of older gay men acting like we're so fucking irresponsible and the earlier generation is so high and mighty. Want to know whats so fucking wrong with my generation? We're almost as reckless as the inhabitants of the 70s.

   But pay attention to the almost. We're merely the children of the Age of AIDS. In the gay community we're taught that sex is nothing but a handshake and who we're fucking is just a bag of beautiful flesh. Therefore we become beautiful bags of flesh. Of course we're not going to give a fuck about ourselves.
   

   Posted by: Damon | Nov 30, 2006 10:14:40 PM

   
   

6. Sorry Damon, but that excuse isn't going to fly. For someone who is so critcial of generations who have come before, you sure did reach back into the Nancy Reagan era for that "Just Say No" speach about abstinence.

   Then you claim it's not young gay men's fault, but rather the message that they're only "bags of beautiful flesh" so they have no choice but to disrespect themselves.

   It's always someone else's fault.... yeah I stopped using that angle when I was 17.

   Posted by: mark m | Nov 30, 2006 10:29:57 PM

   
   

7. It wouldn't matter if it were Reichen or Neil Patrick Harris delivering the message rather than Whoopie or whoever.

   Most gay men take their cues about what is socially/sexually acceptable from their peer group. If doing drugs and barebacking is deemed socially acceptable by your peers, then you're more likely to do it yourself. Because most people are social animals and are conformists and want to fit in and be accepted.

   I'm not sure how it can be done but we need to somehow infiltrate safer sex messages in a more street-level grass-roots oriented approach so that people are getting the messages within their peer group.

   I know this is also going to strike some people as un-PC but we need to re-introduce the notion of shame and ostracism for bad behavior.

   Look at how smoking has declined among the general population. Part of it is public approbation of smoking as a dirty, filty, disgusting habit. The gay community should state in no uncertain terms that meth use and barebacking are filthy and disgusting habits and if you do them, people will shun and ostracize you.

   Sometimes I think gay people are so eager to be non-judgemental about other people's lifestyles because they believe they have been judged by heterosexual society for being gay. But being gay is not inherently unhealthy and does no harm to society. Doing meth and barebacking do harm to both the individual and society (in terms of higher health care costs). I feel as long as you contributing to higher costs of health care in society - higher costs which ultimately come out of my tax dollars - then I have the right to be judgemental about your unhealthy lifestyle.

   Posted by: LightningLad | Nov 30, 2006 10:30:11 PM

   
   

8. See a thoughtful, original video set to James Blunt that offers a reminder on how important it is to get tested for HIV and that life needn't stop if one is positive...here:

   www.thoughttheater.com

   Posted by: Daniel DiRito | Nov 30, 2006 11:55:19 PM

   
   

9. Lightning, every group seriously involved in HIV or addiction prevention (which the HIV Forum isn't) will tell you that to have any effect at all, prevention messages must be couched in the language of the group you're trying to reach—and they have to be delivered by someone members of that group consider a peer.

   That's why these PSAs are useless. Gay men (especially young men) don't see themselves in these 4 actors (if they recognize them at all), have no reason to believe they share their experiences, and therefore will pay them no mind.

   Susan, Rosie, Whoopi and Amanda should be commended for participating. But the HIV Forum and Callen-Lorde need to be taken to task for wasting effort and money on this crap. The PSAs will get some press, they'll give some people an opportunity to pat themselves on the back, but they won't stop a single gay man from using meth or neglecting to use a condom.

   As for your right to be judgmental, you're welcome to it. I guess you've never jaywalked, hit the accelerator when a traffic light turns yellow, had a drink, climbed a mountain, or made a bad decison—even in a moment of passion. (If you have, I suggest you pay for all your medical care out of pocket for the rest of your life.)

   In prevention work, however, there's no room for judgment. You'll never reach an addict—whether his fix is alcohol, drugs, or sex—if even a hint of judgment enters the conversation. Especially if that addict is a gay man because he's been told from Day 1 that being gay is dirty, sick, and dangerous. And he knows that's all bullshit.

   As is the assertion, "Gay men who use crystal meth are 3 times more likely to get HIV," which opens 2 of the 4 PSAs. While I have no doubt that meth's weakening of inhibitons will someday be shown to contribute to HIV infections (as will alcohol, at ten times the rate), to date no study has proven a causal link between the two. What they have shown is that there is a link between meth and HIV: Gay men who use meth are more likely to HAVE (not get) HIV. (Or maybe gay men who have HIV are more likely to use meth. Take your pick). Similarly, the study discussed here

   http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/09/092106smoke.htm

   shows not that smoking triples the risk of HIV infection (sound familar?) but that smokers are as much as 3 times more likely than nonsmokers to have HIV (or perhaps that people with HIV are as much as 3 times as likely to smke as people without). What we're really talking about are people who are more likely to take risks. Quantifying the relationships between various types of risk is largely beside the point.

   The guys at the HIV Forum know they're lying when they throw their fake fact up on the screen, but they do it anyway because they're not really all that interested in HIV infection. They're a bunch of recovering meth addicts, and it's meth use (and media attention) they're obsessed with. They focus on the HIV link only because it lends their crusade extra legitimacy. (As if combatting meth abuse and addiction weren't a worthy cause on its own?)

   Unfortunately, when you lie or exaggerate to make your prevention case, people who do (or are likely to) use drugs or have unprotected sex quickly tune you out. That's why federal antidrug messages are so laughable.

   And speaking of your precious tax dollars, sitting in judgment of your fellow Americans might make you feel superior. But its not going to exempt you from paying for: HIV meds, hospitalizations, services and housing; drug treatment and drug-related health care and incarcerations; supporting unwed teenage mothers and their children; or paying for emergency medical care for people without health insurance.

   If you want to save money on all these things, the only thing that's going to work is supporting effective prevention efforts. And sometimes that means criticizing ineffective efforts that are clearly less geared toward informing and persuading than they are to grandstanding.

   Posted by: 24play | Dec 1, 2006 12:20:55 AM

   
   

10. I actually liked hearing these messages delivered from women instead of men. I wasn't sidetracked by random thoughts like, "He's hot," "He's fugly," "He's closeted - I wish he'd come out already!," etc.

    With the sex vibe off the table, I could really listen to what they were saying - like if I was listening to my sister of my best friend.

    Posted by: SkaTP | Dec 1, 2006 1:33:27 AM

    
    

11. Oops! I meant "..OR, my best friend." Sorry.

    Posted by: SkaTP | Dec 1, 2006 1:34:44 AM

    
    

12. "Sorry Damon, but that excuse isn't going to fly."

    No ones trying to excuse anybody guy. Everyone is responsible for themselves but what I'm saying is that older gay men can't sit around saying that my generation is irresponsible while the earlier generation is blameless. Stop trying to dancing around and actually read and comprehend my post.

    "For someone who is so critcial of generations who have come before, you sure did reach back into the Nancy Reagan era for that "Just Say No" speach about abstinence."

    Just Say No...to drugs. Nuff said.

    "Then you claim it's not young gay men's fault, but rather the message that they're only "bags of beautiful flesh" so they have no choice but to disrespect themselves."

    Mark. Where in my last posts did I say that younger gay men aren't responsible for themselves? I don't understand the rest of this quote. Let me elaborate on my post. I believe that constantly having anonymous partners whether you do it with condoms or not is abusing yourself. You abuse others and yourself when you treat your body and the bodies of others as nothing but sexual dolls without emotions, intelligence, dreams, desires, etc.

    It shouldn't be hard to see that what follows is a lapse of judgement or worse, letting every inch of self-respect leave and open yourself to all kinds of life threatening option.

    "It's always someone else's fault.... yeah I stopped using that angle when I was 17."

    Ha. Well here's the deal man. All I'm saying is is that when fucking is the ultimate goal in life OR believing that sex can be anything less than philosophical and spiritual, you can expect people who believe these things to do stupid shit like bareback anonymous partners and make other irrational decisions.

    So yeah, you guys can kick the abstinance lessons all you want but the same arguments you use against it can be used against safer sex too.

    
    

    Posted by: Damon | Dec 1, 2006 1:41:42 AM

    
    

13. 24Play said
    "Unfortunately, when you lie or exaggerate to make your prevention case, people who do (or are likely to) use drugs or have unprotected sex quickly tune you out. That's why federal antidrug messages are so laughable."

    Amen. Amen. Amen.

    Posted by: Damon | Dec 1, 2006 1:45:37 AM

    
    

14. >>George Michael busy trying to catch it and a bad case of poison ivy

    Posion ivy doesn't grow in the UK.

    Seriously, with idiots still organising bareback parties on Gaydar, anyone saying "use a condom" is doing good--gay or straight, male or female, young or old. End of story.

    Posted by: John C | Dec 1, 2006 8:13:27 AM

    
    

15. Hmmm..

    I like what the ads said.. but it's very difficult to change the behaviour patterns of folks in a 30 second spot.. I think the main thrust of this campaign is to get those who are not involved with these types of behaviours talking with our friends who are meth users and barebackers... I don't how much good that will do, that'll be case-by-case, but sure, it's worth a shot.

    And, I don't mind these 4 women giving the motivational speech, but it would have been nice to have one man in the mix.. somewhere.. are our usual upfront speakers (Fierstein, Boykin, etc..,) tuned out by us and it takes a gay "icon" to get the message across.

    And I totally agree with those who have said.. it isn't over. wear a condom, everytime.. period. Hell, I'm wearing two right now...I rip off one and I feel like a wildman.. ;)

    Posted by: Darren | Dec 1, 2006 8:49:11 AM

    
    

16. Damon,

    I know gay men of different ages who are irresponsible, no doubt. But let's face it, the number of gay men who are BECOMING infected with HIV are largely young men.

    No, these young gay men didn't start the epidemic, but your logic is circular. Men of all ages - many who were young - first contracted this disease back in the 70's and 80's, but a HELL of a lot less was known about the disease back then.

    I read your posts several times, thanks, so no need to "read more carefully." I simply don't buy your argument that this comes down to who started it. This isn't a battle of the generations. Young men, women, gay and straight tend to make a lot of mistakes. I certainly did. But what's worse is when a young gay man wants to immediately dismiss a message because it comes from a bunch of older women, which is what I have read a lot of in these posts.

    Your beliefs about the sanctity and spirituality of sex are admirable, but so idealistic as to be unrealistic when you insist that abstinence is the best message for the male species.

    Posted by: mark m | Dec 1, 2006 9:10:52 AM

    
    

17. Damon says
    "Bull. It wasn't our generation who bought HIV/AIDS to surface. I'm sick and tired of older gay men acting like we're so fucking irresponsible and the earlier generation is so high and mighty. Want to know whats so fucking wrong with my generation? We're almost as reckless as the inhabitants of the 70s."

    To start with Damon it wasn't my generation either. I'm 47 and came out at 21, moved into the city at 22, the year AIDS hit the NY Times. At first we only read about it in local gay rags, it was called the 'gay cancer'. By the time they started to call it HIV/AIDS, and had a test, Scientists had traced a case of HIV to blood samples from a sailor who died in 1959, the year I was born.

    Up until then safe sex was not getting caught by my parents, when I was still living at home. I went to my first fundraiser in '83 to raise money for a new group called the Gay Mens Health Crisis. It was started because it became clear that our government did not care about us. One of Reagans men was quoted "who cares, it's only fags and drug users'. Not much has changed.

    When I started to do volunteer work for the GMHC that year none of my peers had HIV/AIDS. I never looked at it as not my problem. When my Dad asked me why I was doing my 'buddy work', helping those with AIDS/HIV who had no one else to do so, I told him "you always said to take care of your own Dad". That was the year before I offically came out to my parents, though I had started with friends three years before.

    My point is that none of this blaming of others, either gay men of another generation, or straight actresses who want to help, is going to do anything to help stop the spread of AIDS.

    You say "Want to know whats so fucking wrong with my generation? We're almost as reckless as the inhabitants of the 70s."
    I say the difference I see is that while many who were around in the '70's were reckless, they knew nothing of AIDS, what is your excuse?
    

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Dec 1, 2006 11:44:23 AM

    
    

18. Mark said
    "But let's face it, the number of gay men who are BECOMING infected with HIV are largely young men."

    True enough yet what does this tell us? I believe that since HIV has become a managable disease, it has come to look like a life long syphilis. Gay men back in the 70s and 80s treated STDs the same way. No real difference accept humans thinking their so in control.

    "But what's worse is when a young gay man wants to immediately dismiss a message because it comes from a bunch of older women, which is what I have read a lot of in these posts."

    No one's dismissing the message. In my opinion, little messages and ads like this doesn't compare to seeing your friends and family die of the disease.

    "Your beliefs about the sanctity and spirituality of sex are admirable, but so idealistic as to be unrealistic when you insist that abstinence is the best message for the male species."

    Nothing should be both admirable and unrealistic. Its either admirable and realistic or Repugnant and unrealistic. The arguments for safer sex are as circular as they can get. Seriously. Can someone explain to me how you can tell people that although they can't control themselves to do something as simple as wait for a life-long relationship that they can control themselves enough to condoms everytime. Its just COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

    To Patrick, interesting story

    Patrick says
    "I say the difference I see is that while many who were around in the '70's were reckless, they knew nothing of AIDS, what is your excuse?"

    Patrick, who in their right mind would think nothing less than bad could come from getting loaded up with diseases on a daily to weekly basis? Wasn't one of the first theories on HIV was that all those diseases eventually broke down the immune system? Its not a bad theory, not a bad theory at all. Its only logical to believe that the constant battle with syphilis, gonnorhea, crabs, Hep, and all the viral, bacterial, fungi goodies would eventually take its toll. But from what I've read and heard, the band kept on playing.

    What I'm saying is that NO ONE lives like this is excused. Everyone who commits acts that deprive themselves of health should take responsibility for what they do EVEN if they can't get it through their thick fucking heads that whatever their doing then will probably lead up to something even nastier than the last.

    Those guys weren't guys in monogamous relationships who spouses had lied to them. The guys back then and now are guys who think their kings of the fucking world. Who think nothing can touch them. And who think fucking is the all in all goal in life.

    
    

    Posted by: Damon | Dec 1, 2006 2:01:16 PM

    
    

19. DAMON

    Again you sound both very angry, and very naive. I saw a great clip on Oprah where several spoke of lifes lessons. Ellen Burstyn's story was amazing. She said that her life at the age of 73 was still a work in progress.

    Those who preach abstinence or monogomy, while great ideals, so not address the issue that most marriages fail, over 50%. I have to say that in my observation of couples who stay married, over half I witnessed the men cheating. I will add that in my 30 years of dating, most of the guys cheated on me, while I told them I only did one on one. When one guy told me on our third date he was married, to a woman, I asked him why he didn't tell me. "Because I knew you would not want to sleep with me."

    Look at all those who preach about your ideals and those who talk about abortion. You never hear any talk about the responsibility of the men who get these women pregnant to begin with.

    The greatest lesson I have learned in my life is that life is not as black and white as you paint it sir, but many shades of grey.

    Good luck with your journey all the same.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Dec 1, 2006 2:26:37 PM

    
    

20. Patrick
    "Again you sound both very angry, and very naive."

    I am angry. But not naive. I'm angry at the naivety of believing that men who were getting infected with a myriad of diseases with little or no concern can and should be excused for the result of their actions. I'm angry that people honestly think that condoms can change human nature. The incentive for using condoms a decade ago was death. Now that incentives gone. And what do you know, people are returning to barebacking.

    "Ellen Burstyn's story was amazing. She said that her life at the age of 73 was still a work in progress."

    I don't believe I know everything Patrick, but for godsakes I know that I exist. I know that I'm watching "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?". I know that I'm reading "Everyman" too. I know I'm trying to do so much all at once. lol.

    
    "Those who preach abstinence or monogomy, while great ideals, so not address the issue that most marriages fail, over 50%."

    Unfortunately just recently marriage has started to decay with the acceptance of fickle morals and reasons. Its shit but its true. There was a time when marriage did mean something now its almost laughable.

    "I have to say that in my observation of couples who stay married, over half I witnessed the men cheating. I will add that in my 30 years of dating, most of the guys cheated on me, while I told them I only did one on one. When one guy told me on our third date he was married, to a woman, I asked him why he didn't tell me. "Because I knew you would not want to sleep with me."

    This just seem so fatalisitic. Ought we all just roll over and run around single, fucking each other, hoping that a piece of rubber will save us from each others invisible monsters?

    "Look at all those who preach about your ideals and those who talk about abortion. You never hear any talk about the responsibility of the men who get these women pregnant to begin with."

    If you ask me I never hear about the responsibility of the woman who had the abortion. When most people argue against abortion they usually argue against the ideal not the woman although the argument is commonly associated with arguing against the woman. People who argue for loose sexual morals and safer sex expects so little and ask for so much. As you can see, this unfair, complete non-sense tactic has failed.

    "The greatest lesson I have learned in my life is that life is not as black and white as you paint it sir, but many shades of grey."

    I've never painted life as black and white. I believe that if you want to go and fuck your brains out with rubbers, thats all fine and dandy, just don't expect others to have the black/white outlook on condom and condomless sex. Don't expect to be completely protected from the diseases that spread via skin to skin contact either.

    I believe that if you want to go and fuck your brains out with no rubbers, thats all fine and dandy just take responsibility for you actions, your consequences.

    What do I think sex ed should feature? People should know that abstinence and only abstinence with the knowledge of the necessisty to know your partners sex history and status is important. Then after that we move on to safer sex but even then it must be emphasized that people should assume that all their partners are poz and that they shouldn't let their guard down for whatever reason. Once they accept the premise that their partners are poz, then and only then will be truly start acting responsibly.

    Ever gotten on dating sites and seen "HIV-, ub2?" Thats what I'm talking about. People letting their guard down.

    But its just sex, right?

    Posted by: Damon | Dec 1, 2006 3:02:23 PM

    
    
« Previous

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: