Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Rock 'N' Roll Olympics, Episod... | More Responses to the Question... »

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Lifelong AIDS Alliance: Now Backing Sero-Sorting and Restraint

posted by on April 12 at 16:18 PM

I agree with Eli when it comes to writing about HIV/AIDS:

Writing about gay men’s health is one of the most repetitive and least rewarding types of writing I do. It’s repetitive because the fundamental dynamics affecting gay men’s health have not changed since long before I ever started in on the subject. And it’s unrewarding for the same reason: No matter what anyone writes, little seems to change.

Writing about HIV/AIDS is like banging your head against a brick wall—you get bloodied, the wall gets wet. And what’s left to say at this point? We need single-payer, national health insurance in the United States now; gay men need to grow the fuck up and stop whining (lesbians don’t run around claiming that homophobia drives them to use meth); African-American churches and communities have to choose between their hatred of homosexuality and the lives African-American women; if you’re HIV-negative condoms are a fact of life until you’re in a stable relationship with someone who is also HIV-negative (and trustworthy); it’s immoral—very wrong, super bad, really evil—to knowingly, maliciously, carelessly expose someone to HIV. End of discussion.

But for years HIV prevention organizations refused to tell gay men anything they didn’t want to hear—you couldn’t even get them to say that it was wrong to knowingly expose someone to HIV, or that they might not want to smoke crystal, or that it was possible to have too much sex, or that lesbians can’t get married either and you don’t see them jumping into slings at Club Z.

When you wrote about how, you know, fucked up it was that HIV prevention organizations seemed so unconcerned with actually preventing HIV infections—which required telling some gay men what they didn’t want to hear—people tended to yell at you, the writer, for being the bearer of bad news, the hanger-outer of dirty laundry, etc. Crystal-abusing, sexually-out-of-control gay men were the victims! We must attack the root causes—the homophobia, the culture, the church. Blah blah blah. We can’t talk about what we’re doing, or not doing, or our personal responsibility as gay men—to ourselves, to each other.

Eventually I stopped writing about HIV/AIDS. I figured that I had my say, made my points, and I was done. Oh, I have lots of friends with the disease, so I still thrill to every bit of progress made against the damn virus. I’m still hopeful that one day there will be a vaccine or a cure. And I’m still worried about what might happen when that vaccine or cure arrives (it can never be 1978 again, guys). And, of course, I still worry that I might one day contract the virus myself. So I’m only done writing about HIV/AIDS, not worrying about it.

As I long ago wrote off the efforts of our local HIV-prevention orgs (particularly the utterly useless Gay City, which limps along now in the form of a coffee shop), I stopped paying attention to the messages they pump out. The last time I looked at anything Lifelong AIDS Alliance’s prevention squad put out it was an absolutely idiotic campaign that made crystal meth addiction look somehow heroic, like a blow you could strike—or snort, smoke, or booty-bump—for gay rights.

So I was shocked when I stopped in Purr last night—a gay bar across the street from our offices—and found an actual HIV prevention put out by an actual HIV prevention organization. Here’s the front of the card…

cardFRONT

Here’s the back…

cardBACK

The fortune cookie thing is a bit… odd. But the messages on the back—particularly the messages about sero-sorting and reducing your number of partners—are kick-ass, honest-to-God HIV prevention messages. Again, put out there by an HIV prevention organization. How long has this been going on?

When I suggest sero-sorting in my “Savage Love”—a.k.a. positive-positive and negative-negative partners—I get a lot of angry letters. Sero-sorting is a blunt instrument and it’s not always reliable, as not all positive men know that they’re positive. But it’s also been shown to be very effective. No HIV org came up with sero-sorting; gay men in SF and other cities started sero-sorting all on their own. It’s controversial because you can’t back sero-sorting without backing suggesting that HIV-negative men can or should “discriminate” against HIV-positive men. (Oddly no one objects when poz men discriminate against negative men; some negative men are willing to assume the risk of being with a poz partner; poz sero-sorters discriminate against these neg men.) Nice to see Lifelong backing sero-sorting equally, for positives and negatives. That’s brave.

Also praiseworthy is the advice to “reduce your number of sex partners.” For too long HIV prevention orgs told gay men that it didn’t matter how many men they had sex with, it only mattered how they had sex. But the more people you fuck—the more random, anonymous, or one-night hook-ups you have—the greater your risk of exposure. Period. Condoms break, condoms fall off, assholes that don’t care about you—the pool you’re drawing partners from if you’re having tons of sex (a pool that also has higher rates of HIV-infection to begin with)—tend to be careless about condoms. Some are just evil and remove condoms mid-fuck. So the more partners, the higher your risk of exposure—gay men need to be told that, again and again.

Discriminate against poz or neg partners; have fewer sex partners. These used to be controversial things to say. I know because I caused a lot of controversy when i said them. Hell, sometimes I still get shit for saying them. I’m pleased to see Lifelong saying them. Finally.

RSS icon Comments

1

I completely agree. I work in HIV preventioni in SF and the Dept. of Public Health just unvieled a new ad campaign Disclose HIV (disclosehiv.org) that encourages sero-sorting. They're beautiful graphic art, too. You should check them out!

Posted by Dee in SF | April 12, 2007 4:37 PM
2

I first ran into the discrimination when I briefly lived in San Diego. Countless times I was rejected by a poz person because I was negative. But do the same in reverse and you are treated like a hate crime perp.
The attitude is here as well and it always shocked me how blatant the poz guys would be about it, but then cry foul if I ever did it in the reverse.
There is nothing wrong with this attitude no matter what side you are on, but when there are condomns involved wtf!!??
Now I'm in a happy "mixed" marriage and we're fine. We're all adults, we all know the risk factors, so everyone just shut up and fuck already(safely of course duh!)

Posted by matthew | April 12, 2007 4:47 PM
3

I use to work at Northwest AIDS Foundation, and man, management there hated Savage, he was like Damien to them. I remember at a staff meeting, somebdoy asking, "But why does Dan hate us"

I remember a time when Dan came in and asked for Terry and they were all freaking out cuz Dan Savage was at the front desk. It was hilarious. Glad to see they came around.

Posted by SeMe | April 12, 2007 4:54 PM
4

Who the hell are poz people to tell me i need to take a risk i may not want to? Frankly, i can live with a poz person's feelings getting hurt so long as it helps me stay negative. it sounds harsh but we are talking about a debilitating, communicable, and life-shortening (downright deadly even) disease, i don't care how well the cocktails work.

Is this the a fear response to the disease? Yes it is, but the alternative, no matter how small the risk, (not at least trying to sero-sort), is risky.

Posted by Brandon H | April 12, 2007 4:58 PM
5

I don't mind turning down neg guys and I definately understand when they turn me down because I'm turning them down for the exact same reason.

But, if I met the most incredible wonderful mindblowingly fantastic man and he was neg I can't promise I'd turn him down.

Posted by monkey | April 12, 2007 5:18 PM
6

You could also enlist in the HIV vaccine trials - there are a number here.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 12, 2007 6:03 PM
7

I find it odd that there is nary a mention of condoms on their card. It seems like such a glaring omission.

I realize most people are aware of condoms, but still, I think it bares mentioning. Barebacking seems to be becoming an acceptable risk for some people, which makes me cringe.

Still, despite that glaring omission, this does seem like a step in the right direction.

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 12, 2007 6:21 PM
8

umm SDA...look at the bottom of the card again...right there it says: "Use latex or polyurethane condoms..."

Posted by gnossos | April 12, 2007 6:42 PM
9

Let's be clear: In terms of a relationship, condom-less sex is not a goal, it's a situation--just like how the use of condoms is the situation between me and my boyfriend (I'm negative, he's positive).

I appreciate the importance of attaching moral imperatives to HIV prevention, they're very useful--but I certainly don't feel I've sacrificed anything by committing to a life of safe sex, nor do I feel that I've crossed some ethical boundary by loving someone who's HIV positive.

By all means, I think it's an echo of the very reason I came out as a gay man in the first place: I'll love who I damn well please--as much as I can, as best I can.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | April 12, 2007 7:10 PM
10

Dan, the card recommends blow jobs. Assuming I have no open sores or tiny cuts in my mouth, what is the risk when giving head (and not swallowing or getting "cum in your mouth")?

Posted by Mike in MO | April 13, 2007 5:53 AM
11

Dan, thanks again for your defense of common sense. The whole barebacking trend is IMHO an example of internalized homophobia. It is self loathing projected on to their partners. I am an out and proud gay man and at the same time I feel that militant barebackers are an embarrasment to our community. Of course when a barebacker eventually tests positive we will be there with compassion. But please don't make that necessary okay guys.

Posted by Clifford | April 13, 2007 8:01 AM
12

Mike in MO: I won't speak for Dan, but from the work I've done in prevention and reading the research, it's very, very low. There have been only a slight few cases of transmission documented where there wasn't also some other risk factor such as IV drug use or anal sex where a condom might have failed or been used improperly or not at all.

The same is true with the hysteria in the health care and law enforcement industry regarding needle sticks and contact with blood. Very few cases of transmission have been confirmed where there wasn't some other risk factor such as those above involved.

Posted by Michael Ditto | April 13, 2007 8:14 AM
13

Dan,
don't you worry one little bit about gay men enjoying life and sex like many of us did back in the late '70's/early 80's. "AIDS" is far, far, far too much of a money-maker for the pharmaceutical companies for there to be a "vaccine" that will "cure" "it".

You can rest easy that gay mens' greatest claim to victimhood will not be taken from them via a "vaccine". The social engineering and profitability of "AIDS" is something very few people are keen to actually see then end of.

Posted by BD | April 13, 2007 8:26 AM
14

The easiest way to reduce number of partners in SF is to sort on two factors: no bareback & no PNP. That cuts out about 75% of the guys looking for casual sex right there. Yeah, lots of nights with me and my hand, but that's what xtube's for.

Posted by usagi | April 13, 2007 11:21 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).