I still remember the song, Wondering Where the Lions Are. I think it was from the eighties. It was once one of my favorite Top 40 hits. Today its got me thinking. Big time.
Here is a quote from a blog I read recently. The writer is HIV positive.
"Joe's HIV Blog- (a.k.a. "killfoile" in our Community Forum)
June 11, 2005
Random Ones
One dear cost of indifference: is that too many people stood by as crack devastated parts of the black community and again we simply look askance at the devastation of Tina (crystal meth) on the middle-class gay community. While it is ultimately your sole right to self-destruct, when you insist on taking others with you, isn't that the time for the rest of us to act? How fine is the line between enabling and condemning? How many more must we lose, before we ever learn?
One absolute about HIV prevention, is that it will never work until people care enough about their own health to protect themselves. We will never be able to scare or shame you enough, not by criminalizing or even using plain logic to get you to protect your health, if you don't think you are worth protecting. The sooner we address this issue and help to change how people view themselves, the sooner we will begin to see an impact on the HIV infection rates.
One of the reasons that there are not enough positive gay role models is that so many of them died of AIDS. Thousands upon thousands of gay men, from every walk of life, who would now be reaching from there 50s to the 80s, are simply gone. Many have been gone for decades and the void they left will continue to be felt for a few decades more. How different might the gay community and even society as a whole be, if not for their loss? We will never truly understand the magnitude of loss, in the gay community because of HIV.
One of the real conundrums about gift-givers and bug-seekers is how do you get the bug-seekers to feel welcome in some community other than the HIV community? Too many gay men have no sense of a community, gay or otherwise and then see the cohesive nature of the HIV community. Where I live, if you want a good active social life, you are much better off going with the positive crowd. Same with having a sense of community because if there is anything that positive people excel at, it is providing support. So how can we be surprised at some gay men, who are so marginalized by society and even their own family, to seek the one community which not only will welcome them with open arms, but which they alone can decide to join."
From http://blogs.aidsmeds.com/
You might want to read that post again.
I'm especially focused on the issue of "bug chasers" and "gift givers". For those of you who don't know what these terms are, I warn you the next part of this blog is going to be explicit.
Bug chasers are HIV negative individuals who purposely try to get infected with HIV. There's also a corollary term in the ASO world (AIDS Service Organizations) known as "Disability Queens", or" DQ's")-a demeaning term describing people who intentionally become infected with HIV in order to qualify for Social Security Disability benefits and travel from circuit party to circuit party living the so called high life. I believe that "bug chasers" represent a minority of new HIV seroconversions, but they are out there. I believe that "DQs" represent an even smaller minority.
To be honest, with my familiarity of HIV, my understanding of social security compensation and the cost of roving around on the circuit party circuit, I think DQ's are pretty rare. I hope I'm right.
Then there are the gift givers. These are HIV positive people who are willing to have unprotected sex with HIV negative partners and who eroticize infecting others.
Not too long ago, I unintentionally met a "gift giver". He'd first written to me online, we eventually met for coffee and I was later invited to dinner with he and his partner. During the course of my brief interaction with this man, I'd made it perfectly clear I sought his friendship because of our common interest in outdoor activities. Only after I'd been chatting back and forth with him for a couple months, did I agree to meet face to face. I didn't know his HIV status and it didn't matter to me because I wasn't looking for a hook up. Although the man was an attractive, muscular guy, he was also involved in a long term relationship. That translates into "off limits" in my book.
During our online discussions and at coffee, the issue of HIV never came up. But the second time I hung out with him, on the way to meet his partner for dinner, all that changed. It turned out he wasn't really all that interested in the outdoors. It was all a ruse.
On the drive, I learned that he was HIV positive. He'd been infected early in the epidemic. He is what is now known as a "non progressor". This is someone who although they are infected, they never progress to full blown AIDS. Because of this unique characteristic, he'd been studied by several Universities. Indeed the man even worked in public health.
All of this wasn't really all that life shattering. I know many HIV positive people and I am familiar enough with the lingo. Yet as the drive continued, I'd learn far more. I'm still troubled by the specifics of that night.
The man moonlighted as an adult film "actor" who'd participated in several gay bareback porn films. He guesstimated that his sexual partners ran into the thousands. Because of his looks, I didn't doubt that for a minute. I asked him what his life partner thought of all this, and I learned that they had an open relationship. If his partner liked me, they were hoping I was willing to take our relationship to a sexual level but they also "played" separately.
I felt my gut tighten. I wasn't stupid. I realized this wasn't about finding a new hiking buddy. A very intense and aggressive sexual energy replaced what I'd thought was platonic friendship. As we got closer to our dinner engagement, the hints grew stronger.
I asked the man, what if he knew that his sexual partner(s) were HIV negative, would he bareback or would he always use a condom? He answered that he informed his partners of his HIV status and it was their choice whether he used a condom. If a partner wanted him to top, he would be happy to oblige. He'd only use protection if they insisted.
Ironically, he would not let anyone top him without protection because he didn't want to get infected with another strain or combination, "superstrain" of the virus. Because I was negative, he'd already discussed it with his partner and if I was up for it, he'd let me top him without any raingear on.
So that confirmed the motivation for dinner. I realized as I sat next to the porn star, I had a whole new variation of Dinner and Movie going here.
I wasn't up for it. I wasn't looking for a hook up and I'd made it clear that evening that although this couple was really attractive, I was only looking for friendship, not sexual involvement. I'm not judging anyone's definition of whatever works for them. As I wrote earlier this week, how people define their relationships is their business. I know that for many couples, whether gay or straight, there are numerous ways that people interact. I can only define my hopes for myself, and they've happened to land where they have as the result of trial, error and face plants. And not the good kind either.
So, today's blog isn't about fidelity, monogamy or open relationships. It is about the ethical dilemma created when consensual adults play Russian roulette with HIV.
The fact that some folks who know they are HIV positive are still willing to risk infecting negative folks, without consequence or second thought is a serious issue. Even if an HIV negative sexual partner knows their partner is HIV positive, and chooses not to use protection, does their choice to reject condoms automatically absolve any responsibility for the poz guy? If the HIV negative partner contracts HIV, does all responsibility lie with the negative partner for not using protection? Where do we draw the line on where consensual private behavior ends, and society's right to intervene begins? Seriously, once someone is positive, we all pay either directly or indirectly the costs associated with HIV infection. Why isn't intentionally infecting someone considered an act of violence or assault? Or is it like boxing, since both partners willingly entered the ring, anything goes?
Again the guy I mentioned above works in public health. He has to know the social and financial costs of HIV infection. Most people who get infected with HIV will eventually need financial assistance from the government to get their meds, stay healthy, and survive. And the reality that HIV can only be caught by the person on the "bottom" is a total myth. I know many HIV positive men who thought they safe because they were exclusive "tops". So regardless of who does what, the risk of infection is there. Any time protection is waived and one partner is negative, choices have been made by individuals that ultimately have the potential to affect all of us.
My experience with the public health porn star was one of the more unsettling and thought provoking experiences I've had. Now all these ethical questions have come back to haunt me with this week's announcement from the Center for Disease Control that AIDS and HIV infection rates continue to rise and that more than a million people in the US are now infected. I know that in the gay community tolerating different choices and lifestyles is a fundamental part of who we are. But how far should that tolerance go?
As I think about that 80's song and wondering where the lions are I guess I can say one thing: I don't have to wonder anymore. I know where they are. They are among us.
Prayer stuff...
The single mother that was applying for Habitat for Humanity Assistance was approved.
The woman in Montana undergoing experimental treatment, seems to be responding...
Please pray for Jesse, that she has an easy pregnancy.
For Zach the kid that was forced into the camp in Tennessee for ex gay kids...
For all those who struggle with substance abuse...that they find lasting serenity.
Links that make you think....
...More on Zach...http://www.houstonvoice.com/2005/6-17/news/national/tn-teen.cfm
...It's God's way or the highway. But which way is that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?th&emc=th
...Religious fringe groups utilize the information superhighway...
http://www.sovo.com/2005/6-17/news/national/research.cfm
...Two references to the bottomless corruption of our current administration...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17fri1.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17krugman.html?th&emc=th
No comments:
Post a Comment