Comments on Where Is the Love?

Eli, thanks for fighting the good fight. You are not alone!

Thanks to Petrelis.

What were we saying about the carrot and the stick, Eli?

"Um, at least the infection is not rising, right? Sounds okay enough to me, and yes, I wish it were declining, but it seems as though the last thing Dr. Wood wants is a level-toned, but frank, ongoing community-wide discussion about these STD/HIV issues."

What the fuck? It seems okay that the infection rate is steady? That's fucking ridiculous. If there's any attitude that's dangerous to gay men, it's that. That's complacency. That's fatalism. That's what got a 24 year old friend of mine infected. Really, is it more loving to expect and demand that gay men will engage in behaviors that will minimize their exposure to all STIs, or to hold the hands of a meth head who swapped loads with fifteen anonymous partners over the weekend and say, "Well, I don't want to condemn your choices. You're the best you can be and you don't have to apologize to anyone for that?"

Carrots and sticks? The carrot is not getting infected and the stick is having to be on a regimen of powerful medications that can have severe side effects at best, or at worst, dying.

And like one of Pavlov's canines, a public health leader is salivating over the opportunity to use a sexual cluster of four meth-heads all infected with the same difficult to treat HIV strain to put time and resources into stroking the fear element over gay sex, drug use and infections.

If anybody is actually understanding the message that Petrelis is trying to convey...

he's saying that this same, tired old climate of fear that we've been engaging in for 26 years obviously isn't beneficial.

Where's the love? What a great question.

"A little more fear, Dr. Wood, on top of the accumulated fears of a quarter-century of AIDS, and for many gay men a lifelong fear of being bashed or killed by homophobes or fear of rejection by loving family members and friends, and all the other fears we face on a daily basis without full legal, marriage and military equality?"

So what exactly is Michael claiming here, that if only they were allowed to marry & join the military these meth-heads wouldn't be having drug fueled unsafe sex marathons? I don't buy it.

So, BD, where is Peterlis' working alternative? Is making pathetic excuses for this behaviour, as if it had anything to do with marriage equality, going to keep one single person from getting infected? And suggesting that Dr's provide meth-head with prophalactic drugs so they can get drugged up and fuck anthing that moves without a condom, are you actually defending this? Just who is going to pay for these drugs? Just how long will these drugs be effective? These folks behaviour has already given us an anti-retroviral resistant strain of HIV, does anyone believe that a Tenofovir resistent strain isn't just a matter of time?

Seems to me that Petrelis' message is:"Don't worry, we can just give you a prophalactic drug and then you can get Methed out and fuck anything you want, no need to concern yourself with your saftey, that of your partner or that of the larger community. Don't let anything stand between you and your orgasm, anything else would be F-E-A-R."

Tell me, just where is the love in that fucked up worldview?

Let's just all stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away ... NOT!

John,

it would be nice if Mr. Petrelis could join us on this thread to really explain his response to Mr. Sanders' article.

Does he condone or even tolerate meth-fueled orgies? I don't know.

I think Eli hit the nail on the head as far as the most simple message from Mr. Petrelis's piece, which is "where is the love?".

Eli--right on, and keep it up.

It's sad that the most common-sense and intelligent commentary on safe sex in the gay community comes lately not from experts such as Petrelis, but on a much-trashed sitcom, the War at Home. Brief story-so-far: The gay teen who was kicked out of his parents' home when he came out is now living with the title family, and the father is having to play surrogate dad in some ways. When the teen is facing a home-alone situation involving a date, the mother asks the father to speak with the kid about safe sex. Dad demurs, and mom follows up with a simple, clean line that should brook no opposition: "...And I don't want him to get AIDS." That's it. No more discussion, no more comments about "feelings" or "understanding" or "tolerance." Teach him to wrap it or face possible consequences.

I assume that Petrelis would bemoan the "fear" implicit in that statement. The rest of us should cheer it.

BTW, the episode also showed the above-mentioned date, and although it was extremely G-rated, it was cute and funny--the show has got to be one of the most gay-positive shows on TV, and since it also features the most gay jokes, that's quite a feat.

Thought you all might be interested in the DailyKos posting and comment thread on all of this.

Happy to see a debate raging about all of these issues. Here is some background about why I think fear is not healthy for homos:

POZ Aug 2006

Fear Factor

by Michael Petrelis

Spooky new prevention crusades scare Michael Petrelis to death
Before I was diagnosed with HIV, in the mid-’80s, only one thing forced me to protect my partners and avoid sharing sperm: sheer, utter terror. Watching my friends die such quick, pain-racked deaths struck unbridled horror in me and so many of us in AIDS-haunted communities.

In those early days, we all grappled with spooky unknowns. What, precisely, caused the dying—and how could we stop it, treat it, live with it, get the care and respect we deserved? In such a climate, fear of the disease and dying was probably one of the best options to spur behavioral changes that could save our and others’ lives.

Now, as AIDS turns 25, so much has improved for those fortunate enough to have survived and have accessed treatment. Why, then, is fear—demeaning, demonizing, repulsive fear—still being used to hype HIV prevention?

Every night, as I walk home from dealing with doctors, diagnostic tests or running to the pharmacy to perfect my ever-changing AIDS cocktail, I must pass an enormous billboard selling fear in San Francisco. Fear of me, Michael Petrelis—and fear of you, whoever you are, wherever you are—and HIV.

A supposed friend of people with HIV, the Stop AIDS Project, recently launched a prevention campaign with an alarmist tagline so creepy it seems ripped from a ’50s pod-people double feature:

“Some of the guys you’ll cruise tonight have an STD.”

Attention, good people of San Francisco! Run for them thar hills and hope those guys don’t follow you, swim through the sewers up into your shower and nail ya.

Then there’s another billboard, from SFisReady.org. “Ready for the day when we can date without fear of infection?” it asks in large black letters.

This one’s a recruiting tool for the HIV Vaccine Trials Network. I support the trials and hope they produce a vaccine, but I absolutely loathe how the ad tries to make us feel bad—that all potential sex partners might think twice about dating me. That all we homosexuals—“the gays,” as we are often lumped—are diseased and should be handled with tongs.

Frankly, I already do date without fear of infection—fear of infecting others, that is. My commitment to safer sex and preventing HIV is crucial to my mental health. It also does wonders for my self-esteem. Of course, I’m not an idiot: I fully realize that the younger generation, not having seen the horrors of the epidemic’s dawn, might need aggressive education.

But these doomsayers provide no education—say, how to use a condom or which activities are riskiest—nor do they tell us where any education might be found. We’re told only to distrust all men we cruise. There’s a difference between taking responsibility for your safety and fearing your partner as intrinsically harmful and just plain bad. It’s also not sex positive in the least, and this is just one example of many other campaigns driven by alarm and subtle panic.

Sometimes I wonder why my heterosexual brothers and sisters complain that there isn’t enough HIV prevention targeted specifically to them—when, if they had to endure the alarmist screeds we endure, some of them might never step outside.

What we need today, for all sexually active people, regardless of our sexual orientation or bedroom activities, are nonemotional campaigns and workshops, stressing level-toned language to deliver safer-sex messages that work.

Let’s rewrite the billboards: “Be concerned about averting HIV and STDs. If you’re at risk, call the health department for more info and consider joining the vaccine trials. Always use condoms or serosort. Embrace and support HIV positive people for all they do in ending the epidemic. Working together, we can end AIDS.”

Catching, isn’t it?

In case none of you are aware, Michael Petrelis is a first class crank and a traitor who conspired with Republicans in Congress to cut-off funding for AIDS support and research organizations. Google it.

He's a contrarian that just harasses and attacks people and does nothing productive for our community. For him to talk about love is really rich.

Here’s one of many examples:

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2002/08/08/3

Frak him.

Great writing, Mr. Petrelis.

As a frequent visitor to San Francisco, I'm surprised anybody has the courage to leave their home for fear of contracting HIV somehow. I've been told by people here that I shouldn't have sex with anybody in SF (they make the mistaken assumption that I'm going to SF for sex in the first place).

All those ads in the Castro. Really. I seriously wonder why people would even find sex appealing after being bombarded with them. I don't. Maybe that's really the point. It's truly sex-negative, but in a politically-correct faux-sex-positive kind of way.

What a breath of fresh air to read somebody write about AIDS without shaming, fear-mongering and hysteria.

I will now prepare myself for the posts featuring...shaming, fear-mongering and hysteria.

“Some of the guys you’ll cruise tonight have an STD.”

Sounds like a simple statement of fact to me, one that anyone out cruising should be aware of. Is it fearmongering when the American Cancer Society tells us that smoking can cause cancer?

Seems to me the crucx of your argument, Michael, is that you (as an HIV positive person) see this sort of straight forward factual message as some sort of attack on you. You even go so far as to claim the above truth is instigating fear of you personally. Well I think it's time to get over your bad self, Mary. This isn't about you, it's about the hundreds of thousands of folks, who aren't HIV positive, and trying to keep them that way. As far as I'm concerned, the feelings of HIV positive folks are both irrelevant and a distraction to the issue of HIV prevention.

So, you attack efforts at spreading a safe sex message as "fearmongoring" and look down at anyone, who doesn't share your "hay just take a pill and keep on having all the meth-fueled unsafe sex you want" approach as not being "sex-positive", but what do you offer instead, more of the same tried shit that isn't working, Oh and giving HIV+ folks special recognition "Embrace and support HIV positive people for all they do in ending the epidemic." (As if those of us, who are HIV- do fuck-all to end this epidemic). If you want someone to hold your hand and you feel better about yourself, get a shrink. The job of HIV prevention programs is to prevent the spread of HIV, not to make anyone feel better about their HIV status or their unsafe sexual practices!

I have to disagree, BD, Petrelis does plenty of shaming. After all, what is the point of calling folks "sex-negative" if not to shame and ostracize.

Odd. What BD and Mr. Petrelis seem to share is an inability to listen to and deal with reality without being "afraid" of it.

If someone says, "Those levees are weakened by the storm and may break," is that encouraging you to fear engineering? To be afraid of walls? Does it make you less likely to want to fix the problem? When someone tells you a bridge is out, or a power line is down, or that a floor is slippery, are they teaching you to fear gravity, electricity, and friction?
Warnings are warnings for a reason -- to tell you that something bad could happen and that you should be careful. It's information. Power. The ability to affect your own destiny and life, something you can't do unless you know the risks. If you choose to "fear" the message and be all overcome with the weight of this fear, that's your choice. If you, even more bizarrely, learn to fear sex itself and claim that safe sex warnings are sex-negative, than again: you chose to interpret the message that way. Don't blame the messenger for reminding you. That's like blaming your doctor for harshing your mellow when he points out a cholesterol level in the stratosphere: the fact is the fact. How you handle it is up to you.

No BD: no shame, fear-mongering, or hysteria here. The only hysteria I see is among those who think that being warned of a danger somehow equates to fear-mongering.

And as for those ads in the Castro, which I appreciate whenever I see them: the only way they can be seen as sex-negative is if you find the prospect of safe sex somehow scary, which would reflect more on you than on the ads.

sigh...i'm soooo tired of the stranger's anti-body hair agenda...why can't they 'Love The Hair'?

@12: Demonizing the advocate of a position does little to advance your own argument. He may be a crank and a contrarian, but his points are still salient, well-supported -- and perhaps even valid. But then, Cicero said it best: "When you have no argument, abuse the plaintiff."

Me, I think he could've worded it better. But the point I'm left with -- and have to admit, I agree with -- is that many feel scare tactics are not entirely working. It is entirely possible that those being newly infected are simply not reached by messages designed to instill paranoia, but a proper conclusion is difficult to ascertain with such meager statistics.

Still, most communication campaigns -- whether commercial, political, or non-profit -- realize the necessity of appealing to separate "markets." To make further gains, it is only prudent that we begin to tailor our messages for different audiences. While correlation certainly does not imply causation, it is also important to keep in mind the plateauing rate of HIV infections in King County as a possible sign of this saturation.

Absent any reliable information to declare a different tone for HIV prevention messages ineffective, I think it's worth a try. One size does not fit all.

And as for those ads in the Castro, which I appreciate whenever I see them: the only way they can be seen as sex-negative is if you find the prospect of safe sex somehow scary

A little misrepresentation can go a long way...

please. Who finds safe sex to be "scary"?

While having tailored messages for different markets seems a perfectly reasonable proposition, this is NOT what Petrelis is suggesting. He doesn't seem to want the message in the billboards he complains about sent at all. Seems that even if the plataeu of infection rates in Seattle is due to what Petrelis and BD term "fear-mongoring" and "hysteria", that in itself is proof that they have some efficacy. So why are they suggesting we throw them out in favor of some pablum about calling the Health Department and embracing and thanking HIV+ folks for all they have done for us.

Medeii: You're assuming your own conclusion in the argument, and it's not an assumption all of us are comfortable with. You describe the current ads as "messages designed to instill paranoia" and "scare tactics". Says who? All of your discussion of messaging and markets may or may not be true, but you completely glide over the central point of this discussion: whether or not discussing facts, infection rates and current awareness-raising campaigns are "fear-mongering." I say that they are not, and given the current infection rates in SF and elsewhere, I actually don't know if they are "scary" (in other words, honest and unflinching) enough!
It is not paranoia in the slightest to assume that some of the guys you'll consider banging tonight have an STD: given the infection rates in SF alone, it may well be on the way to a safe bet! The key words are "some." And no one is telling you never to have sex, or to be afraid of people: this message is telling you to protect yourself, as only you can.
This should be common knowledge, and protection is easy, yet some people convince themselves otherwise. It's human nature to ignore the reality in favor of pleasure, but that doesn't mean that reality is "scary" or paranoia-inducing: it may be unpleasant, or a wake-up call, or even unwanted: but to call it fear-mongering is exactly what you call out in your post: attacking the messenger because you don't like what he says.

Medeii, according to the link to planetout, Petrelis does not believe HIV causes AIDS. Doesn't that seem like relevant information when one is speaking out about AIDS prevention?

BD: "please. Who finds safe sex to be "scary"?"
Apparently, you do, since ads encouraging awareness of the STD rate in the general populace and encouraging safe-sex is somehow "fear-mongering."
How did you phrase it? "I'm surprised anybody has the courage to leave their home for fear of contracting HIV somehow....I seriously wonder why people would even find sex appealing after being bombarded with them. I don't."
So, basically, safe-sex campaigns scare you. I'm not here to judge as to what makes you go jump in the night, but I resist the idea of watering down the message and encouraging more group hugs just so you don't get freaked out by health statistics.

TP,

we're getting back to the very crux of this thread, which is that Michael Petrelis brought up the use of fear to control sexuality.

Actually, I think fear is the most powerful motivator there is.

Back in the early '80's when we were watching the news, seeing all the men in San Francisco withering away with big, purple splotches of KS (usually on their faces), it was pretty damned scary. But, we've been trying to milk that initial fear for over 20 years now. It's not really effective anymore.

So, unless we can somehow go back to the "old days" and put some good old fashioned fear into the homos of today, we're probably not going to scare people into more compliant behavior.

And, just threatening people with the fear that we may go back to the "old days" if they're not safe, isn't going to work. That's essentially what we're doing though.

>Medeii, according to the link to planetout, Petrelis does not believe HIV causes AIDS. Doesn't that seem like relevant information when one is speaking out about AIDS prevention?

Well, Chris Lisotta of PlanetOut, who never called me by the way for that story, got it wrong. I am not an HIV denialist. For the record, HIV causes AIDS, the protease drugs are helpful, and my current cocktail is keeping my viral load in check.

Really hope this sets the record, ahem, straight.

@21: Says who? Says a number of people in this thread, Mr. Petrelis, and the Daily Kos writer. Not everyone shares your viewpoint, or mine, or Mr. Petrelis'.

Personally, I find it hard to call 'Watch out, everyone might have AIDS!' anything but a paranoid message. Indeed, "some" is a key word -- but such temperance is rare in HIV campaigns. Probably because it doesn't sound as forceful, as angry, as cautioning ... or as fearful. I fully agree that fear is a powerful motivator, and my earlier post was not meant to discredit its effectiveness (please read it more carefully, if that's what you came away with.) My point was that the plateauing of HIV infections can be indisputably correlated with a paucity of differing message types. Proving causation in this case is pretty much impossible, but the implication exists, and correcting the situation by increasing the outreach to different audiences is very unlikely to lead to an increase in infection rates.

Finally, I must necessarily attack the messenger because, in media, the message is almost invariably the messenger as well: I can hardly attack a billboard's message without discussing the billboard itself, or its creator. But to draw similarities between the comments of 12 and myself is fallacious. I don't know, or care, if those accusations are true; they simply have no bearing on the argument at hand. It's not a matter of liking what the billboard says, but a matter of judging its efficacy in promoting a message by analyzing personal reactions. And in that, my viewpoint and reaction are just as valid as yours.

@22: Not when the message he's advocating is substantially different from a reiteration of his personal beliefs. I may have missed it, but I didn't see him saying we should put up billboards saying, "Go play! HIV isn't related to AIDS."

>For him to talk about love is really rich.

hey original andrew,

is there a law that says i can't talk about love? who are you to decide who is allowed to discuss love?

and yes, i have lots of political baggage, easy to google. you can also find some good things about me on the web too, like working last year on global protests about iran hanging queers:

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2006/07/reports-pix-from-july-19-cities-this.html

hey assholes! (and i mean that in the most flattering sense. i've met plenty of nice assholes in my time.) have you tried reality yet? maybe it's time for STD control workers to actively promote the anal condom as a method of stopping HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

From the BAR in 1996:

IDS czar Patsy Fleming and White House Gay Liaison Marsha Scott did not answer the B.A.R.'s calls by press time.

San Francisco AIDS activists Michael Petrelis became the first male to ask for the internal condoms at the city health clinics, which lead to a brief inquiry by the city's Human Rights Commission into whether the refusal to his request constituted sex discrimination, before the policy was changed.

Petrelis said he is outraged that the federal government stopped progress on the Aegis because of homophobia, and also derided health officials for not fully investigating the Reality, which he blamed on "the de-gaying of AIDS" and homophobia.

"According to the most recent annual report put out by the San Francisco AIDS Office (in 1991-92) people with AIDS in this city are 98 percent male," he said in a recent interview. "Eighty-six percent of them got it through male-male sex - and there's this wonderful thing out there that can save lives, but because they're called `female condoms' even out gay public health officials don't know what they are, or that they've already been studied for anal sex."

Next, he said, he may file a class action lawsuit to make the internal condoms available to men statewide.

"How many gay people must contract HIV/AIDS through anal sex," he asked, "before the authorities think we can handle Reality?"

Copyright (c) 1996 - Bay Area Reporter. Reproduced with Permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Permissions Desk, Bay Area Reporter, 395 Ninth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. Distributed by AEGIS, your online gateway to a world of people, knowledge, and resources. 714.248.2836 * 8N1/Full Duplex * v.34+

over at the daily kos diary on all of this, a link to a seattle weekly story from august 2004, is opening my eyes to another time dr. wood raised alarms and fears about queers, HIV and sex:

A year later, the alarm is looking a bit premature. Wood concedes that "what we had predicted didn't turn out to be" and that the rate of new HIV infections appears "fairly level," at around 2 percent to 2.5 percent of the city's gay male population annually—a rate that has been static since 1997. "A year ago, we thought we were detecting an increasing rate of HIV infection," says Wood. "That turned out not to be the case."

link to the full story from 2004:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0432/040811_news_aids.php

I've cruised and hooked up in the Castro, seen the paranoid posters, and been glad they were there. I wasn't shamed at all. I did check my wallet for condoms.

I'm going to re-post some math I did the last time this subject came up:

73% of current Seattle HIV cases were contracted by MSM (men who have sex with men) behaviors, 82% when you include cases where the cause of exposure was either MSM or injection drug use among men who have sex with men.

If, as a recent survey of US census data suggests, gays and lesbians make up 12.9% of the total Seattle population, and if we assume that gay men and lesbians live in Seattle at a 1:1 ratio, it's easy to figure that somewhere around 9% OF SEATTLE'S GAY MEN ARE HIV+.

Tell me that's not something to be ashamed and scared about. We've known how to stop this virus for 20 years! 20 FUCKING YEARS!! And we're still getting it. Why not try fear? Why not talk about shame?

STOP FUCKING WITHOUT CONDOMS! STOP TAKING METH SO YOU DON'T CARE THAT YOU'RE BEING FUCKED WITHOUT A CONDOM. If you do these things, you're ruining your lives, and you're making my fun that much riskier.

[Those numbers are through 9.30.05 and can be found here: www.metrokc.gov/health/news/04062301.htm. I got the Seattle population numbers from Wikipedia.]

Part of me would like to weigh in on this, but I'm too old and hairy.

The part of Seattledan's comment on your DailyKos post that I found most interesting, Michael, was the Community Manifesto that came out of this. Do you have a position on said manifesto?

Tell me that's not something to be ashamed and scared about. We've known how to stop this virus for 20 years! 20 FUCKING YEARS!!

Why not abstinence? Or outlawing homosexuality?

Both would be extremely effective.

How about just putting a fucking rubber on your cock before fucking someone in the ass, or making sure your partner has a rubber on his cock before he fucks you in the ass? Why the need to hysterically jump to extremes, BD?

Part of me would like to weigh in on this, but I'm too old and hairy

It's might be possible to be too old, but there's no such thing as too hairy. Woof.

BD: you're an idiot. Homosexuality was illegal in a lot of the US while this plague was getting going in the 80s. So that didn't work. And we know that abstinence doesn't even work for Chrisitans!

Just WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM!!!

Really, what's wrong with saying that? I love gay sex. I love people who have gay sex. I can say that without shaming and I can hear with without being shamed. If you fuck without a condom, or you take meth, you ought to be ashamed. It's shameful.

Don't you think both of those ideas would be effective?

I do.

Amazing that when you suggest something that actually will help, you get shot down. What could be more effective than abstinence?

Maybe we could get some right-wing lawmakers to connect the dots with homosexuality and AIDS. It's all so clear, thanks to JAK.

The right wing already connects HIV with homos. and you know what? They're largely right. And whose fault is that? Ours. It's our fault that we're still getting this disease.

What's wrong with telling our own, loud and clear, what they ought to do to protect themselves and others?

Saying "WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM" isn't going to fuel the fire of anti-gay sentiment any more. In fact, the worst thing we could do is allow more of ourselves to become infected, reinforcing the stereotype of gay self-destruction and recklessness.

some modest proposals related to gay meth-heads, hiv prevention and gay sex and drugs:

1. promote PrEP, pre-exposure propholaxsis, as a prevention strategy for gay meth-heads, and strongly encourage them to take tenofovir.

2. promote PEP, post-exposure propholaxsis, to any gays having risky sex.

3. gay meth-heads should consider joining the HIV vaccine trials since they may qualify for the research trials.

4. encourage safe drugs habits, like stimulating the libido with maryjane.

5. develop ad campaigns with old fashioned, but still necessary basics about proper use of penile condoms. we should always have condom instructions as part of our health promotions on web sites, in gay rags, even if we are all tired of the message or ignoring it.

6. promote widespread use of the anal condom.

7. loudly talk about sero-sorting and sero-positioning for pozzies.

8. renew the gay community discussions about alcohol and poppers and their roles in our sexuality, without demonizing and stigmatizing gays who drink or like the brown bottle.

9. stress the pleasures of sucking cock, instead of anal sex, since HIV is so much easier to contract through butt hole ramming. oh, and advise men in the proper way to really deep throat and appreciate a cock.

10. fire dr. wood. if his best strategy is shout FIRE, er, FEAR, maybe someone can replace him and present new thinking. i'd sure like to see some longtime STD control chiefs move on and have DPH's bring in new leaders.

11. start pozzie only nights at sex clubs, and in cities with bathhouses, to increase opportunities for serosorting.

12. san francisco should reopen the bathhouses, and perhaps one just for pozzies, every night.

13. insist on lower music levels, at least a few nights a week or over the course of an evening, at sex venues. talking is a great prevention tool, without the thumpa-thumpa of the crap music in SF sex clubs. negotiating safety, disclosing HIV status, is served when we can hear each other.

14. STD control chiefs should stop being always on the prowl for new subcultures or groups of sexual and drug networks to strike with fear and stigma. one month, it's bugchasers in the crosshairs. then it's black men on the down-low as targets. another month, actually lots of months, it's meth-heads. or guys using viagra. can we try gay public health without lurching from crisis-to-crisis, or demonized group-of-the-month to wag a finger at?

15. improve homo health with ongoing discussions between DPH/STD control folks and people having sex and using drug, and lessen the need for public health offials and AIDS execs to only have SHOUTING and FEAR based social marketing campaigns, by insisting AIDS Inc and partners stop thinging that only provocative and controversial ads are the key building block for our complex health and sex lives.

Good Lord Michael, what a load of pablum:

1. And just how long do you think we have before we find ourselves battling a Tenofovir-resistant strain of HIV? Why not just tell everyone, meth-heads included to WEAR A MOTHERFUCKING CONDOM!!!

2. A very good idea, of course we should also discourage the risky behaviour in the first place. (I know how gauchely sex-negative of me).

3. OK, of course if we get a misrepresentativly large sample of meth-heads it may skew results, who know's maybe meth affects the vaccine somehow.

4. Hey, I loves me my dope, but I don't think promoting its use is a valid expenditure of HIV prevention money.

5,6 &7 are good ideas, but should be secondary to telling folks to use condoms

8. Sounds like a good idea, but your caveat probably means no one can state factual information like alcoholism is bad for your health, wouldn't want to make the alcoholics feel bad after all.

9. I'll sign on for discussing safer ways of getting off (which would include mutual masterbation, anal play with toys etc.), again I don't think that public health funds are best spent on teaching anyone how to deep throat.

10. So disagreeing with the great self-promoting Mr. Petrelis is cause for dismissal these days, I'll keep that in mind.

11 & 12 Serosorting or not, having anonymous sex without condoms is a STUPID FUCKING IDEA and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.

13, Or maybe discourage folks from going to sex venues? Seems to me there would be far more opportunity to have all the appropriate discussions you cite on the way home with your trick.
Oh, and you are the one suggesting regulating sex venues, I'm just pointing out the logic being more extensive.

14. Seems to me rather prudent for folks concerned with public health to be on the lookout for potential problems. In fact, I find far preferable to the days when the couldn't be bothered because it was just a bunch of faggots and druggies dying. Seems to me that in each case you cite, the behaviour of the groups in question posed significant health risks ot themselves and the larger community.

15. Ah yes you knew it was coming, everybody get together for big hugs to make sure the meth-heads, bug-chasers and guys on the DL don't suffer from low self-esteem, because as everyone knows that the worst thing that could happen.

>Why not just tell everyone, meth-heads included to WEAR A MOTHERFUCKING CONDOM!!!

that bit of shouting from john, who makes a few good comeback arguments, some cracked ones too, reminds of the old stereotype of the american tourist in europe.

he's asking the frenchman for directions to somewhere in english and the american thinks if he just shouts LOUD and OFTEN enough the frenchman will understand him.

John: Word.

I honestly don't know any other way to describe Mike's "proposals" here: it's like a hellish combination of Stuart Smalley and ACT-UP. As long as we all feel good about ourselves, and no one is ever made to feel like they made baaaad choices, then we will all magically make better decisions! Like the only thing stopping gay men from stopping AIDS is (snort) loud music in gay clubs--Wait, I can't let this one go. You want to see fear and paranoia? Try telling Badlands they have to play 'Grace Kelly' quietly so everyone can talk about their HIV stats, and then wait for the crowd reactions. And why on earth should we help increase the risk of breeding resistant strains of HIV by using it in large doses on people who want to be unsafe, and plan on using HIV drugs to do it with? What that says is that an extra 10 or 20 years of drug usefulness (the difference between the drug's usefulness with and without the darwinian campaign to make it stronger by handing it out at meth parties) is less important than some men's need to PnP. How is thatbeing responsible?

Please repeat this to yourself, as many times as necessary: the health community is not condemning people, or groups of people, or making people feel bad. It IS labeling choices, and actions, and decisions as right and wrong, safe and not safe. It is the sign of a mature culture, one that is able to point to some of its own members and say, "You are hurting yourself, and by extension all of us. It needs to stop--and protecting your own life is all you have to do."

No, Michael, people understand what you're saying when you say "WEAR A MOTHERFUCKING CONDOM." It's not in French. It's as clear as it can be. What gets in the way is all this CRAP about how we should understand people who engage in unsafe sex and accept their choices as valid.

Barebacking is not an acceptible choice. We should not tolerate the activity at all. People who engage in barebacking should know that their actions are not okay, that if they engage in barebacking they're making pariahs out of themselves.

And we should ostracize. We should shame. We should not tolerate anonymous barebacking.

Well, Mike, unless all the gay men in SF don't understand English, I haven't yet heard why "Wear a M'F'n condom" isn't a bad place to start, nor a bad message to send.

Moving away from the moral message here (one that I think is completely valid, obviously) of responsible choices within the gay community, there are also the larger political and social ramifications. I can't think of better fodder for the right wing hate groups than some of Mike's ideas.
Let's round these up: encourage certain illicit drug use to avoid other illicit drug use, teach how to deep throat, use tenofir to avoid the completely-avoidable consequences of unprotected sex (simply to avoid using a condom, helping to breed better HIV bugs), re-open bath houses, talk about alcohol and poppers (but not, you know, in a bad way). Oh yeah--and make sure that health statements on the risks and issues we face are always positive and make everyone feel good about what they're doing, even if it's bad and we know of new threats.

Christ on a cracker. Want to pee on a flag while you're at it? This is like Christmas morning for Brownback; he could ride into Washington on this alone.

Crap like this would make our own families turn against us if they thought this was an honest statement of the "gay agenda." Combine that with the reality that all of these ideas are just a long list designed to insulate people from the natural consequences of their actions, and I'd say we have a community damn near ready to throw itself on the funeral pyre.

I just keep getting reminders of Paragraph 175 when we as gay writers write about the so-called worst of 'us' by slicing a side of the room that becomes a place for the now shunned pale for 'them.' Us/them is a very dangerous ground to establish. There is a reason why we don't demonize those of our own we just don't understand, or get disgusted by, or become bothered by their own choices of free will, or because they might simply smell funny. I do not like many actions of meth heads, but they are never the less, part of my tribe. We all should be held accountable, but I don't understand how a 26 year old has become judge?

Eli has nothing to worry about if he adheres to his own safe sex proposals as vehemently as he seems to spit with words on those 4 crystal using, now HIV+ gay brothers. I don't see how demonizing, condemning or bad mouthing helps any of us?

ARgh!

Moving away from the moral message here...of responsible choices within the gay community, there are also the larger political and social ramifications. I can't think of better fodder for the right wing hate groups than some of Mike's ideas

I'm not too keen on that list of ideas.

Aside from that, you bring up an interesting point. Do we base our decisions within the gay community out of fear of what the right wing hate groups may do in response?

Well thank g-d you're not an ugly old bear! How gross! That would invalidate your writings on sex for sure....

Well to try put this debate into another perspective...

Yeah 400 or so new infections every year sucks and yeah it would be great if we could lower it -- even marginally, bit by bit.

But, ya know what? We really ain't doing that bad.

Funding for HIV prevention locally and nationally has been either flat or reduced for like ten years straight. So if funding is either being reduced or being held level why would you expect to see any different outcomes?!

Nationally new infections have been averaging 40,000 a year for almost a decade. Again, if you're not increasing what you spend, why would expect to see an increase in results?

We're just treading water. And as HIV treatment has gone through exponential improvements since 1995, the pool of people living with HIV is increasing. This means ever more people living with HIV who are capable of spreading the virus.

I know this is hard for folks to believe, but our rates of new HIV infections are so low (as a percentage) that we aren't considered anywhere near a high incidence or prevalence city and so our federal funding continues to decline while other cities (think Baltimore, New Orleans, Houston) goes up.

Twenty years ago -- when we were considered a hard hit city -- there was a fair amount of direct federal funding coming to Seattle, but for the past several years the response has been: "you guys don't need it, your epidemic is under control."

What's happening is not a failure of local prevention efforts, but the direct outcome of a mindset that thinks that 40,000 new infections per year is not that big a deal.

After all, it's only fags, junkies, crack heads, meth freaks, and coloreds.

Last I checked, Michael, the majority of meth-heads here in the good ol' US of A spoke english. One would think that "WEAR A MOTHERFUCKING CONDOM" would be perfectly clear and understandable to them. Perhaps Gay City should look into using that for the slogan of their next campaign, it's simple, easy to remember, I bet it would be effective and it has the added bonus of pissing off the religious right.

I've still heard no substantive argument from Michael about why putting out such a clear message is a bad thing.

Adam I don't see anyone demonizing anyone merely pointing out ill advised behaviour and its effects. I'm sure "those 4 crystal using, now HIV+ gay brothers" as you so sacharrinely described them are perfectly nice and lovable folks, heck the may even be someone you, I or any of us knows. But that doesn't mean their actions aren't dangerous and stupid. I don't know if you have any siblings, but when mine do stupid shit, I tell them NOT TO DO STUPID AND DANGEROUS SHIT. I don't pussyfoot around it for fear of hruting their feelings, I tell them the fucking truth becuase I care enough about them to deal with them being pissed off for a bit, but safer for it.

John @ 50:

Just for the sake of argument: can you name me any public health or safety effort that's gotten above an 80% success rate without the force of law or the power of a vaccine behind it?

Most public health victories I can think of have been accomplished via vaccine (as in smallpox and polio) or through dramatic improvements in living conditions (access to clean water and sewage disposal systems).

Forty years into aggressive efforts to stop smoking in this country and we still have about 25% of the population sucking down nicotine.

Helmet laws? In Seattle bike riders routinely ignore the law. Once I saw a motorcyclist take his helmet off (@ 60 mph) while crossing state lines from a helmet law state to one that didn't require it.

Seatbelt laws? How the fuck much money does this state spend on promoting seatbelt usage?

DUI. Ever increasing fines/penalties and ever lowering limits and bazillions of dollars spent promoting designated drivers and, wow, somehow there are still drunk drivers.

Checked out drug laws lately? Seen any real reduction in drug use?

Obesity. Notice any trends towards increased slenderness?

I could go on and on and on and come to the same result screaming: WEAR A MOTHERFUCKING CONDOM is gonna be useless to a certain group of folks.

Got a solution?

A thought experiment. Any ideas? suggestions? A few of
us with personal experiences have been discussing a thought
experiment the strategy of potential sex partners getting
tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of sexually transmitted
infections and revealing their results to one another
BEFORE having sex. Public health officials have not been
observing the phenomenon of this strategy. Informally,
clinicians for example like those at Dartmouth College
Health Service student medical services have seen same sex
and heterosexual couples who say we haven't had sex yet and
we want to know more about what could happen before we
begin the sexual part of our relationship. Journalists have
not observed the phenomenon other than the syndicated
Ann Landers' columns recommending the strategy for
potential couples concerned about their sexual histories.
Here's a collaborative blog http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com
Questions. How widespread is the phenomenon going on of the
strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of STDs
BEFORE we have sex? Besides reducing ambiguity for the
respective sex partners doing the strategy, what would be
the effects on the epidemic? the effects on transmissions
of human immunodeficiency virus? if 1% of the population
did the strategy? if 10% of the population did the
strategy? If some percentage of the population did the
strategy, at what level could the course of the acquired
immune deficiency human immunodeficiency virus epidemic
change? What related studies are going on now or proposed?
What related reports have come out? What media have covered
or mentioned the strategy? Have you or anybody you know
actually tried the strategy?

It’s not like me to jump into online frays, and like Michael Petrelis, I probably come with my own political baggage, but a few of the comments I’ve read here demand a response.

Michael Petrelis is one of the most committed, dedicated, tireless, selfless individuals I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Just because you Google someone’s name doesn’t mean that everything that comes up is true.

Yes Michael embarked on a campaign with the late David Pasquarelli, who was a member of the "excommunicated" ACT UP San Francisco, and yes, there were those among that group who believed that HIV and AIDS was a conspiracy perpetuated by drug companies, and yes, in an attempt to shake some of the apathetic from the snare of complacency, and take the fear-mongers to task for spouting doomsday prophecies about sub-Saharan AIDS levels without releasing or providing adequate data to back themselves up, Michael went too far, ending up in prison facing ridiculous, trumped-up charges.

And just like I’m willing to do now, I was willing to go to bat for Michael before anyone else had to my knowledge, because I believe that his intentions are nothing but rock solid genuine and devoid of some kind of bitchy, self-promoting fag-agenda.

Just because Michael’s ideas might provide "fodder" for anti-gay right wing groups, is not a reason to dismiss them. Going to a bathhouse might also provide them "fodder," but so too might going to a church. So what? We should cease going anywhere or doing anything just to accommodate the misconceptions of a bigot? Like the right wing nuts need any fodder.

Michael’s willingness to hold those whose livelihoods and existence rely solely upon dire predictions relating to HIV or AIDS accountable is something to be applauded, not mocked or criticized. It is possible to raise these kinds of issues without denouncing the work of many AIDS activists and health care workers who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit.

While it may be incomprehensible to forge an alliance with the likes of Tom Coburn, for instance, Michael’s beef -- that perhaps spending money on programs teaching gay men how to rim with affection while picking out paint swatches might be marginally effective from a prevention standpoint – still make sense.

In an Annoy.com review of the documentary "The Gift," by Louise Hogarth, I wrote about the complexities relating to effective prevention strategies, and the crisis that has resulted from almost twenty years of mass confusion in AIDS and HIV messaging.

As much as ads by GlaxoSmithKline depicting healthy, gorgeous looking men scaling mountains on their HIV meds may inadvertently evoke a sense that living with AIDS is as simple as popping a pill with your multi-vitamin every morning, a poster campaign by STOP AIDS Project San Francisco included vivid images of some of the effects of AIDS, such as diarrhea, facial wasting, night sweats and crix belly. While these are likely to frighten some people into thinking twice about having unprotected sex, they are just as likely to be ignored by others looking to have a good time. They also raise another critical issue that Hogarth’s documentary touched on, which is the extent to which negative portrayals of people with HIV unnecessarily offend and scare people who are living with the virus (particularly those who are asymptomatic), and even worse, scapegoat, isolate and denigrate an entire group of people who happen to be carrying a virus that does not discriminate.

Complex questions indeed, but one thing is certain. Delusions of moral superiority (despite pre-emptive disclaimers immediately ignored – torrentpime!) are not going to help.

It takes courageous people like Michael Petrelis, who are willing to risk their safety and stand up and demand fairness, honesty, transparency and accountability from all involved to generate a course of action that is worthy of pursuit. Especially when it means going against the flow. Sitting on the sidelines criticizing a genuinely committed individual who has given so much, based on dubious results served by Google searches – not so much.

When you all get this figured out, and when the last case of HIV has been cured, let me know, will ya? The last time I had sex with anyone was in 1989. Pretty drastic, eh? Well, someone above mentioned personal responsibility. That's how I look at it.

The reported cost of HIV drugs would chew up most of my income, and I really can't justify asking my friends and neighbors to buy them for me just so that I can keep screwing. Is it really right for ne to demand that inusrance companies and the government pay for HIV medications just so that I can continue to f**k?

I don't go around advocating celibacy. In fact I think that this is the first time I have mentioned my personal decision in public, but damn it gets tiring to hear the same old arguments decade after decade.

1989? I moved here in 1989 ... man, that's a long time.

BD:
Aside from that, you bring up an interesting point. Do we base our decisions within the gay community out of fear of what the right wing hate groups may do in response?
Speaking as one who is tired of losing elections and initiatives, I say anyone who isn't worrying about both the political and the substantive is sinking their own ship. And anyone who pretends otherwise can go talk to Amanda Marcotte.

Your argument mostly amounts to "Michael means well" and "criticism of him is wrong, because it's just so mean," and, again, "Michael means well."
You also rely a bit too heavily on the "maverick" angle, ala John McCain. He's courageous, willing to go against the flow, risk his safety, etc. Just because Michael bucks the current trend doesn't make him right! It just makes him different. And you cheapen his argument (and yours) when you reduce arguments against him to be reactionary, afeared-of-change kneejerks against someone who dared to be different. If his oh-so-radical arguments are so good, they'll stand on his own, against criticism and testing.

Oh, and because I have an opinion different from his (and yours, apparently) I have delusions of moral superiority. {eyeroll} I thought we were past this kind of high school, "You're imposing your morals on me by having some different than mine!" Michael is advocating for a retreat from any sense of right and wrong in terms of sexual activity, and seeks to remove hurt feelings or non-groovy vibes from the discussion. Fine. It's his life, and he can do, and say, and preach whatever he likes. But just as he has the right to harangue health professionals for making judgments on behavior, so do we have the right to have an opinion on whether his approach is both efficacious and wise, from all angles, your stated belief that he has no "bitchy agenda" notwithstanding.

from eli's article:

>Further, given the four men's sexual histories, it's probable that they themselves passed their drug-resistant strain of HIV on to other men before they were diagnosed (one of them was diagnosed in 2005 and the rest were diagnosed in 2006).

i sure would like to know if dr. wood raised any public concerns when the first case came to his attention in 2005 or the three other cases were diagnosed in 2006.

assuming that he did so in 2005 and 2006, did he attempt to inject fear into HIV prevention back then?

on the other hand, if he didn't and he waited until 2007 to bring public attention to the cluster, why did he wait?

also i wish to address someone putting words in my mouth:

>Michael is advocating for a retreat from any sense of right and wrong in terms of sexual activity, and seeks to remove hurt feelings or non-groovy vibes from the discussion.

no i am NOT. i am asking that public health officials and AIDS Inc develop models for gay health that are not solely based on fear and controversy.

"1. promote PrEP, pre-exposure propholaxsis, as a prevention strategy for gay meth-heads, and strongly encourage them to take tenofovir."

Is this intentional irony? Like, "Take prep as you prepare for AIDS?" Because, if you're a methhead fucking without a condom, you're pretty much certain to be exposed and to expose others. Seems like the simpliest preparation would be to, as many others have pointed out, WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM. Even I learned that in Catholic school

Oh, and because I have an opinion different from his (and yours, apparently) I have delusions of moral superiority. {eyeroll}

Come, come, we don’t want this to degenerate into a pissing match do we? I was defending Michael against some of the misinformation being bandied about above, and strongly recommending that criticism levied be done fairly and accurately, not that it be withheld altogether. The biggest problem I had/have with many who did not see eye to eye with Michael was that they categorized all his behavior as counter-productive, when he has done some amazing work that benefits everyone.

I’m not relying on any "angles". The truth is that historically, much of what Michael has railed against has, alas, proved correct. Health officials in San Francisco were making statements related to HIV rates that were given credence in publications globally, and when Michael demanded that they produce evidence to back their claims, they were unable to do so. His quest for transparency, so that data can be analyzed by everyone, regardless of their agenda, should please everyone, regardless of what side of the debate they're on.

Your sarcastically delivered round-up (45) was flagrantly based upon what the right wing might use as fodder and infused with a disdainful rejection of bathhouses, alcohol and poppers as inherently “bad”. If I choose to live my life free of the burdens or impositions of rightwing nuts that will use anything to vivify who and how I fuck, that’s my prerogative. It doesn’t mean I endorse barebacking methheads, which is essentially how you represented your round-up. Nor does my pissing on a flag, for which Senator Brownback can choke on my cock before I give a shit, have anything to do with anything. This conflation is yours, and sorry, I’m not buying. Conveneiently lumping everything together is simply lazy and counter-prductive.

And just as there is, I believe, place to target a hard-hitting campaign (even evoking fear if indeed that will work), there’s also room for compassion and understanding for people who, no matter how bad or wrong you think they are or have been, have as much right to live their lives without being branded, stigmatized and condemned by self-righteous victims of guilt who still worry what Mommy and Daddy might think. (Despite my own, perhaps Brownback-fodder-providing “gay agenda” my parents still love me.)

i'd like to applaud the metro king county health department for posting good info and facts on serosorting on their site:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/serosorting.htm

does anyone know if there are poz-only nites at the two baths up in seattle? or maybe a network of pozzies hooking up only with each other might be happening.

>Seems like the simpliest preparation would be to, as many others have pointed out, WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM.

well, many of gay brothers, both those using meth and those who don't, are not putting on their rubbers, and i dont't they will anytime soon just because someone keep SHOUTING at them.

given that condom fatigue is happening, it is wise to consider other methods of prevention, including tenofovir.

i sometimes think SF aids prevention folks don't promote tenofovir to meth-heads and others sexing without condoms is either because they don't think prevention is anything other than a condom, or they'd rather the unsafe guys get infected.

>if you're a methhead fucking without a condom, you're pretty much certain to be exposed and to expose others.

so true. and i'd like to have more options for those guys, who are my brothers, others than SHOUTING about rubbers, like PrEP and also PEP.

there are ways to develop/enhance/promote harm reduction for the fuck-heads sexing on meth.

Man. We are fucked. Really and truly fucked.

#46 -- what the hell are you talking about with Para 175? The Imperial version criminalized male sex acts that were "similar to intercourse" and prosecution rates were unbelievably low. Really. In fact the Berlin police ran around spending more time trying to catch criminals who preyed on the city's gay community than trying to prosecute under 175.

If you're talking about the Nazi version, then you're also blowing smoke. The idea of gay persecution under the Nazis is way overblown. Arrest rates were low compared to jews and political opponents of the regime. And death rates from time in the camps was also very low compared to jews, gypsies and others. And the NSDAP wasz rife with fascist homos -- kind of like the Republican party today. Just think of them as log cabin Nazis.

And prosecution was never very fierce after the war in the BRD. So what the fuck are you talking about?

And, no. I'm not a fucking holocaust denier. I'm a faggy jew boy from NY.

Hi Jonathan (# 62/63,)
It is with deep regret that I read that any homo brother would be dispensable to you ever. You wrote, "Arrest rates were low compared to jews and political opponents of the regime. And death rates from time in the camps was also very low compared to jews, gypsies and others."
It doesn't matter how low the rate of arrest and execution was of any group under the imperial use of 175 at any time. My point was, that the public fervor can roll down the tracks like an out of control steam roller- the little engine that should becomes the little engine who claims public mandate as judge and jury. And as we as the gay community get fed up, overwhelmed, and unable to shed the fear of sero conversion for our up and coming younger brothers, we can produce public policy that is stilted, vengeful and neglectful to a perceived as evil now-to be-separated population.
Even yourself acknowledged that the first ignored use of 175 developed into a later further developed and exploited use by a devilish future Nazi regime that picked and chose who, what, when and where to apply the criminal code to our once protected gay forefathers.
There has always been 'villains,' dubbed by some AIDS activists and public health officials, within this epidemic, that are also patients who sero-convert. These people need care, too. In the 1980's, just being gay made all of us one time villains. AIDS is perceived to be totally eradicated by social behavior. However, the length of time of the epidemic causes me to search for a more real time solution. Advocating for completion of the Tenovir studies so we can safely market this drug to HIV- people resistant to condom use just seems smart and clear thinking.
I don't think SHOUTING or blaming ever fits into good public policy or debate. I have held the hand of too many gay men who have died of AIDS regardless of their means of sero-converting. This is burned into my memory.
Anger is better reserved for government bodies and video game losses. Persistence, compassion, and a curiosity of view in epidemiology and continued forms of HIV prevention might just help us all find the ever elusive prevention method or cure everyone on this list serve so passionately wants.

PS- Happy Valentine's Day Everybody!

Kiss a gay brother and sister for me! Think of all the possible kisses!

I posted this sad news on my blog today:

There's tragic news coming from Philly today. Mark Norris, the head of the ad agency behind the controversial HIV prevention social marketing campaign "Have You Been Hit?", featuring young black men in the cross hairs of a sniper's rifle, was gunned down earlier this week. His brother and a business partner were also murdered, perhaps over a financial deal gone bad.

Even though I strongly objected to the offensive ads and deplored the company that created them, with public dollars from the Philly health department, I am of course deeply saddened that Norris' life has ended so violently.

Two lessons I take away from this story is there are simply too many guns on our streets and weapons are not the answer to resolving differences.

From today's Philly Inky story:

Mark David Norris, who was killed Monday in the boardroom of his Navy Yard marketing company, was an entrepreneur who projected a stylish image and the sense that he had an inside line on the next big business trend. [...]

Others say there were clues that Norris, 46, of Pilesgrove, N.J., the president and chief executive of Zigzag Net Inc., may have operated several businesses too close to the margins. Police say Norris, his brother and a business partner were killed by an investor who claimed they had defrauded him.

According to public records, state and federal tax agencies have filed liens against Zigzag for nearly $180,000 in back taxes and unemployment compensation.

And some who knew Norris said his business deals often seemed fragile.

"He always played very close to the edge," said John Serpentelli, 42, an animation artist who was Norris' romantic partner for seven years. "He was very charismatic and convincing." [...]

Police said Vincent J. Dortch, 44, of Newark, Del., gunned down Norris and his brother Robert E. Norris, and their business partner James M. Reif Jr., over allegations that they had misspent his investment on an Upstate New York conference center they were rebuilding.

The eldest of four brothers, Mark Norris went to school at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, N.Y. He dropped out in his freshman year, early in 1979, and enlisted in the Marine Corps. He came to Philadelphia as a Marine recruiter. After his discharge, the self-taught artist began producing and selling paintings to galleries, Serpentelli said. From the art world, he migrated into marketing. [...]

"The man was talented," said Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, who met Norris after the artist fashioned a new logo for Philadelphia International Airport, where Segal is on the board of directors.

Though he acknowledged to friends that he was gay, Norris did not trumpet his orientation because he said it could be bad for business, Serpentelli said.

Two years ago, Norris and another man moved into a two-story stucco house in the Thoroughbred Homes development in Pilesgrove, a village in Salem County. [...]

Last year, the company won a Philly Gold Award for best public service advertising campaign for its "Tough Choices" Web site to encourage at-risk African American youths and others make responsible choices about HIV-AIDS.

But a $236,000 HIV-AIDS campaign Norris designed last year for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health that equated high-risk sexual behavior to gun violence was criticized by gay, African American and AIDS activists, who called it insensitive. In response to the uproar, the city pulled the plug on the campaign.

Click here to read the full Inky piece. And this is one of the images from the controversial HIV prevention campaign Norris created last year.

And my point was that there was no slipperly slope in Germany in respoect of the persecution of gays. You simply don't know or understand the history if you think there was. And nothing I said could or should be taken as condoning the prosecution of anyone under 175, or more generally under Nazi rascialist, eugenic or morality laws.

There was no "ignored use" of 175 in the 1890s that started Germany down a slippery slope to the "devilish" Nazi regime.

175 was hotly contested and debated in the Empire and the decriminalization of sodomy was debated on the floor of the Reichstag as a bill brought by the largest party of the day: the Social Democrats. It wasn't "ignored."

But again it bears remembering quite clearly that Nazi persecution of gays was, frankly, comparatively mild. You wanat an example: There were huge lesbian dances in Berlin into the 1940s. These "balls" were infiltrated by the Gestapo -- why? Not to shut them down, or to put a lid on lesbian nightlife, but to make sure that *jewish* women weren't going to them. That's right. The Gestapo was tolerating gatherings of hundreds of lesbians, just so long as they weren't Jewish lesbians. What motivated this seeminly bizarre behavior by the Gestapo? 175 didn't apply to women.

And, in any case Nazi persecution of gays shouldn't be used to justify misguided posturing today.

Like your suggestion that we indulge people among us who are "resistant to condom" use. If you want to make a hard-headed epidemiological argument that coddling them makes sense because it has a greater chance of reducing the epidemic, go ahead. But don't trot out the argument that we shouldn't judge them and just need to be compassionate.

"But don't trot out the argument that we shouldn't judge them and just need to be compassionate."

Jonathan, Pslam 67

You win Jonathan.

Ugh, AA you should have to provide barf bags with that "gay brother" treacle you're serving up.

>Like your suggestion that we indulge people among us who are "resistant to condom" use.

maybe indulging our barebacking HIV poz meth-head brothers is not an answer. perhaps we ought to consider a few floated previously by the SF STD control chief really scare fucked up fags ...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.webb.html

Washington Monthly
Nov 2001

[snip]

[Klausner] has suggested a number of measures, some coercive,which he thinks would slow the increase of new HIV infections among gay men. Among them: closing sex clubs and adult bookstores; enforcing no-sex ordinances in bars and clubs; enforcing no-drug policies in bars and clubs; and Internet-based outreach and education, particularly in chat rooms where many gay men meet new sexual partners.

Putting aside political realities when brainstorming on this subject, Klausner also raised the possibility of quarantining those who cannot control their infectivity---e.g., those barebackers who've infected 20 different people and still refuse to use condoms.

[snip]

Michael and Adam: I'm sorry you're offended that I'm advocating treating this epidemic like a public health crisis, not a therapy group.

And before you pile on, I'll be the first to say that addressing a public health crisis -- an epidemic -- requires addressing the underlying causes, which here include mental health and substance abuse issues.

If you see an HIV+ man, such as Mr. Petrelis, who doesn't see anything wrong with wilfully exposing other people to this virus... sneeze on him.

And then ask if he has a way of getting you not to do that without a fear campaign.

And as for serosorting...
1) Leaves you open to just about every other infection, sexually transmitted or otherwise
2) Relies on meth-heads who can't figure out the "condom goes on penis" rule to be honest about their HIV status
3) Gives a false sense of security - if someone positive shows up at a negatives night due to misdiagnosis (such as testing too early) then the whole negative community is hit.