Darkside Rainbow

Kids? I got nothin’ today. I’m burnt out, drained, and out of whatever juice it is that fuels my random bouts of eloquence. I blame the fact that I just started a fourth new writing job (good, more good than I’m at liberty to discuss here) but for now am still working my old non-writing fill-in-the-gaps-in-the-bills job at the same time until the first check for New Writing Job clears (bad, very bad, my stress levels are through the roof), and the only thing maintaining my sanity (and staving off my infamous temper) is remembering that I’m doing all of this so I can move out of this Texan hellhole and back to Chicago, and remembering that hey, once the dust settles, I’ll finally have achieved my goal of being a full-time writer (if…not quite in the way I’d originally planned).

Gods, that’s a lot of parentheses. Why do people pay me to write, again?

In the interests of actually posting something topical rather than whining about “oh my god, earning a paycheck is so hard”, though, I did want to run through a few news articles that touch on things that have recently developed regarding issues discussed here in the past. So without further ado (and ’cause I have sh*t to do and need to get going):

CDC Disputes Study of Staph Infection Among Gays: Remember that CWA article quoting rates of MRSA infection among gays and using it as evidence that we’re all going to hell because we’re nothing more but unclean, disease-ridden sinners who spread the plague via our unnatural ways? The CDC has pretty much said “slow your roll, biatch” and is taking a closer look at those statistics and how they might have been skewed to point to those results and make MRSA out to be the next big AIDS-style “gay cancer” scare.

Gay Canadian Health Minister Offended Over Donor Ban: In another instance of official parties getting involved in the news and taking a stand against possibly skewed preconceptions and prejudices against the gay community, the Canadian Health Minister is prepared to actively fight the ban on sexually active gay men as donors of healthy, viable organs. Damn straight…er…well, not so straight, but you get the idea. It’s about time someone in politics showed some common sense, rather than persisting in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, as the old saying goes. It would be nice if that “someone in politics” would crop up here in America to brandish a flaming cluebat of common sense, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Anti-Gay Westboro Baptist Church to Picket Heath Ledger Funeral: Here’s one that’ll really piss you off. Del mentioned in the previous post about Heath Ledger’s death that the WBC (that’s right, Freddy Phelps is back again) is already making plans to picket Ledger’s funeral, accusing him of being hellbound because he promoted acceptance of gays as a “fag enabler” through starring in BrokeBack Mountain. Here’s the worst part:

That…that’s real classy, right there. Just in case you weren’t feeling the Love of God^TM (oh yeah, I’m feelin’ it, like a North Carolina glory hole), it now comes in pamphlet format, just to make sure the grief of Ledger’s family isn’t trivialized enough by these filth-spouting, batsh*t crazy nutjobs. You’re going to hell, kiddies. I’ll be there, too. Bring your own munchies, but the martinis are on me.

Man Probed On Water Polo Photos On Gay Sites: Lastly, here’s something new to help dispel the palpable air of gay martyrdom that’s starting to float around here like some choking miasma of smugness. As if the “probing” pun in a gay headline wasn’t bad enough, UC Irvine dispatcher Scott Cornelius is under investigation to find out if he took pictures of teenaged - teenaged, people - water polo players and posted them on gay websites.

…

Thanks, Scotty. As if we didn’t have enough flak to deal with with people considering all of us to be dirty, perverted pedophiles. Yeah, okay, now and then a piece of jailbait is nice to look at as long as he at least looks over eighteen, but fer Chrissakes, you don’t take pictures of these kids and post them online as potential wank material! Good gods, didn’t your Momma ever teach you better? Hell, if she didn’t smack you upside the head enough, I’d be happy to volunteer to compensate.

Idiots. Frigging idiots. The worst part is that of course someone will sound the alert, wave the torch, and raise the flag, and eventually Cornelius will come to be considered yet another example of the gay community who proves that we’re filthy pedophiles who want to make hot, sweet love to their children (typing that made me gag). If Cornelius hadn’t done anything gay-oriented, he’d just be considered another sick individual, with his sexual orientation not even a consideration.

The worst part?

There were people out there looking for photos like that.

I just hope they didn’t know that the boys were underage. I need to retain at least some faith in humanity and in the gay community, because right now I’ve barely got the thinnest thread left.

That’s it, I’m out. Ciao bella, and see you tomorrow with something of more substance.

I haven’t gotten a hit off a Technorati tag in months, so why do I tag this shite again?

One of the things that piques me most strongly about the disparity in perceptions between the heterosexual and homosexual communities is the assumption that heterosexuals are clean, wholesome people who never sleep around, never do drugs, always practice safe sex, and would never engage in intercourse with someone they weren’t wholly committed to - while homosexuals are considered promiscuous, reckless, and profligate, ridden with disease and addled by drug habits marked upon the community as clearly as heroin tracks down a junkie’s arms.

Stereotypes ignore the high rates of teenage birth among the heterosexual population, the divorce rates (often due to infidelity), the unemployment rates, the education statistics, the drug use statistics…while at the same time ignoring the high percentage of the homosexual population who believe in commitment, who practice safe sex, who are self-sufficient, drug free and responsible citizens who seek to educate themselves and contribute to society.

Neither stereotype is correct; neither positive or negative view can wholly represent either demographic, but instead only highlight extremes used as ammunition against the opposition when attempting to claim equality or even superiority. We are all greater than the sum of our parts; so, too, are the many demographics that we all represent greater than the sum of their parts. The creature that we create known as the “community” is larger than we, a giant and representative beast, faceless and almost autonomous from its many minuscule and independent cells - and like healthy skin stretched smooth over cancer cells, like tarnished scars over a strong and beating heart, that monolith of the community often lies about the very parts that comprise it.

Is the face of your community lie, or truth? Do you exemplify it or defy it? Among your demographic, where do you fit?

Do you fit the stereotype?

1.) What is your gender?

       (a) Male.
       (b) Female.
       (c) MtF trans.
       (d) FtM trans.
       (e) Androgynous/genderqueer.
       (f) Intersexed.

2.) What is your sexuality? (If you’re transgender, choose the sexuality you define yourself as with your chosen gender.)

       (a) Heterosexual.
       (b) Homosexual.
       (c) Bisexual.
       (d) Asexual.
       (e) Confused as hell.
       (f) Cannot define because genderqueer/intersexed.

3.) Are you currently in a relationship?

       (a) Yes, and I’m happy with it.
       (b) Yes, but I’m looking to end it.
       (c) No, and I’m not looking for one.
       (d) No, but I’d like to be in one.
       (e) I’m dating, but not really committed.
       (f) I’m in multiple relationships/open relationships.
       (g) I’m not sure.

4.) Are you now or have you ever been sexually active?

       (a) I have been in the past and I am now.
       (b) I have been in the past, but I’m not right now.
       (c) I’ve never been sexually active/I’m a virgin.

5.) How many sexual partners have you had in the past?

       (a) None.
       (b) None, but I have fooled around a lot beyond first base.
       (c) One to five.
       (d) Six to ten.
       (e) Eleven to twenty-five.
       (f) Twenty-six or more.
       (g) So many that I’ve lost count.
       (h) I’m not sure/I’ve never counted.
       (i) That’s private/I don’t want to discuss it publicly.

6.) Do you practice safe sex/exchange of bodily fluids?

       (a) Yes; always.
       (b) Some of the time, when I remember to.
       (c) I mean to, but I rarely remember.
       (d) It depends on my partner and if I trust them or know they’ve
        been tested.
       (e) No; never. I don’t even think about it.
       (f) I’m a virgin/I don’t fool around.

7.) Were you ever educated about the dangers of unprotected sex?

       (a) No. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
       (b) I was never educated, but I learned on my own.
       (c) Yes; I was given educational material/instruction about
        unprotected sex.

8.) Do you or have you ever used drugs?

       (a) Yes, and I still do.
       (b) Yes, but I don’t anymore.
       (c) Yes, but I’m trying to quit.
       (d) Yes, but only lighter things; nothing hard/heavy.
       (e) No, and I never have.
       (f) No, but I would be open to trying it.

9.) How do you feel about drug use in others?

       (a) It’s their life; I don’t care.
       (b) I’m strictly against it; no one should do drugs.
       (c) I’m strictly against it, but won’t stop them as long as they don’t
        associate with me.
       (d) I’m all for it.
       (e) I’m all right with it as long as it’s regulated and done in
        moderation.

10.) Are you currently employed?

       (a) Yes, but I’m looking for other work.
       (b) Yes, but I’m not looking for other work.
       (c) No, but I’m looking for work.
       (d) No, but I’m not looking for work.
       (e) No; I’m too young to work/still in school/live with my parents.

11.) What is your highest level of education?

       (a) Some high school.
       (b) High school.
       (c) Some college.
       (d) Associate’s degree.
       (e) Bachelor’s degree.
       (f) Master’s or higher.

12.) If you have not completed your field of study, are you still studying or did you drop out?

       (a) I’ve completed my field of study.
       (b) I’m still studying.
       (c) I dropped out, but I plan to go back.
       (d) I dropped out, but I have no plans to go back.

Remember, you can answer all of these anonymously if you don’t want to vouchsafe these details with your name. I can’t even tell who you are if you choose to do so; you can just type in “Anonymous” for the name and put in a fake e-mail such as none@none.com. Everything passes through a proxy IP on a squid server, so you all look like the same IP address to me when you post anonymously - so there’s no fear that I’ll discuss your answers as associated to you.

My answers:

1.) a. 2.) b. 3.) g. 4.) b. 5.) i. 6.) a. 7.) c. 8.) e. 9.) c. 10.) a. 11.) d with a bit of e, as I have an associate’s but I’ve studied towards a bachelor’s. 12.) kind of b, kind of c, since I’ve completed one degree but want to return to finish another.

quiz, gay stereotypes, straight stereotypes

Here’s a little food for thought from the U.S.’s frosty Northern cousin:

Sexually active gay men no longer allowed to donate organs - CBC News

A number of organ donation groups said Monday that they are unaware of new Health Canada regulations that mean sexually active gay men, injection drug users and other groups considered high risk will no longer be accepted as organ donors.

The new rules, which came into effect in December, are similar to the regulations for determining who can donate blood. Those rules exclude groups that are at high risk of transmitting infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C and B.

Dr. Gary Levy, who heads Canada’s largest organ transplant program at Toronto’s University Health Network, said he was unaware of the new policy on organ donations.

Officials at several transplant programs in the country said because they were unaware of the new regulations, they would continue to consider all potential donor organs.

“We have not been informed, first of all, that Health Canada is considering this,” said Dr. Gary Levy, who heads Canada’s largest organ transplant program at Toronto’s University Health Network. “Obviously if Health Canada wishes to discuss that, we would hope they would engage all stakeholders.”

Dr. Peter Nickerson, director of Transplant Manitoba, which procures organs in that province, said transplant programs must now by law interview family members of the donor as part of the screening process.

“We’ll be asking about things like travel, history of infectious disease, whether they’ve [donors] been in jail — that puts you at increased risk,” Nickerson said. “Have they been an IV drug abuser in the past? Have they had tattoos? There’s a whole list of questions we go through.”

This was sent to me by one of my LiveJournal friends, who said that people have been pretty outraged over the ban on gay donors. Before you get up in arms, though, let’s break this down a little and try to look at it clearly.

Positives:

• Statistically, STD rates are higher in the GBLTQ community, so by eliminating that statistic they’re also eliminating the risk of spreading STDs to unsuspecting recipients. It’s unfortunate, but it’s also reality.
• Even if it’s only semantics, the ban is limited only to the sexually active - people who’ve engaged in intercourse with the same sex in the past five years.
• It also includes drug users, a group that should be eliminated anyway because of the damage to their organs from the choices they made to take harmful substances into their bodies and the possibility of spreading disease through shared needles. There are other risk groups banned as well.
• While shortsighted, this is a preemptive measure by the Canadian healthcare system to try to safeguard the lives of its patients, not a deliberate attempt at malice or prejudice.
• An arbitrary ban is more cost-effective and efficient than initiating new testing measures to ensure that gay and other high-risk donors aren’t carrying anything infectious.

Negatives:

• If we’re going to be realistic, one must face the fact that there are also plenty of straight people with STDs - and banning sexually active gay men from being organ donors may reduce the percentage of possibly infected donor organs, but it won’t change the fact that the healthcare system needs to develop more stringent and effective testing methods for harvested organs.
• It’s difficult enough to get healthy donor organs even without excluding a portion of the population, and by refusing to accept organs from sexually active but healthy gay men, they’re denying the possibility of an organ transplant to patients who may be in dire need.
• There’s a touch of pointlessness when it’s easy to just lie and say one isn’t gay. There is the process of interviewing family, but that can still be circumvented. Even in my fractious and contentious family, I could get them all to lie for me for a week if it meant that I could toss a kidney in a cooler to help save someone’s life.
• To be completely fair rather than targeting a specific demographic as high-risk, all donors should be tested rigorously when their organs are harvested; straight donors’ organs are (or had better be) already tested, so it should be no different for gay donors. It would create more work for the healthcare system, but it would increase the donor pool and provide a fair criteria for rejection rather than an arbitrary and preventative one.
• …there is a bit of an implied insult by lumping homosexuals in with drug users. Specifically, lumping gay men in with drug users, as you’ll notice that the ban doesn’t include lesbians.

It’s hard to judge when the U.S. has had a ban on gay blood donors since 1985, for similar reasons. In both situations, while it may be a cheaper and simpler way to reduce the numbers in risk percentages…I don’t think it’s the right way.

health canada, gay organ donors, gay blood donors

I know I normally only post updates to No Style on Mondays, but I couldn’t resist sharing this. Imagine my surprise to check my e-mail yesterday to find this:

Click to view full-size.

< < previous | archive | next > >

Wow. I have fanart. I feel like I’ve arrived or something.

That little gem is courtesy of none other than Lala, who can also be found on deviantArt. I think she just might have picked up on my inherent dislike of the more extreme examples of yaoi fangirls.

I probably shouldn’t have read that while on the phone, because I ended up cackling in a friend’s ear. It’s…um…disturbingly accurate, right down to the “please kill me now”-style whining throughout that little…er…tour. Thanks, Lala. That really made my day.

On a more serious note, a new study has shown that while rates of new infections of HIV have dropped in the gay community overall, they’ve risen startlingly and alarmingly in young gay men. The demographic is limited to New Yorkers, but is likely frighteningly indicative of a national trend. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: we need more HIV/AIDS education - not just for gay youth, but for youth overall. Teenagers are going to have stupid, reckless sex; it’s what they do. It’s why abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work; it doesn’t stop them from having sex, it just keeps them from knowing the dangers when they do decide to throw caution to the wind and just screw it. Or just screw each other.

Although we do need more sex education particularly and openly targeted towards gay teens, primarily to make them feel that it’s safe to ask questions about the particular dangers that are more prevalent in homosexual sex than in heterosexual sex. I know that when I took sex ed in high school, after the section on STDs I really didn’t have the courage to walk up to my Biology II teacher and say, “Hi, I’m gay, and I’d like to learn more about HIV/AIDS prevention than the two-minute discussion you just glossed over. Can you point me to some resources so I can educate and protect myself?” Most of what I know about HIV/AIDS I learned from four years volunteering with NOLAN, a New Orleans-area HIV/AIDS education and assistance foundation. Not all boys that age have access to such a resource, and can’t always openly approach someone for assistance for fear of being outed to parents or other disapproving authority figures.

I just don’t think, despite aggressive campaigning, that gay youth are aware of how dangerous HIV is - and it’s too easy to keep the “oh, it won’t happen to me if I’m careless just once” mentality. “Just once” turns into “just twice”, then three or four times, then every time…and yet later they’re surprised when the blood test comes back HIV+. I would blame the recklessness on the annoyingly stereotypical yet frustratingly prevalent culture of feckless youth among the gay subculture, but in truth that’s starting to die out and gays are slowly beginning to abandon the Peter Pan mentality to behave in a more mature, responsible fashion. I don’t know what to blame it on, and I don’t care. It doesn’t change the fact that further education is the most important first step in prevention.

Too many people view HIV as a disease that happens to other people, but that somehow won’t ever afflict them. It’s not. HIV touches everyone. Most people have had someone in their lives, whether friend, family, lover or spouse, that they lost to HIV. It happened to them. It can happen to you.

Do you really want to be just another name on a tombstone?

no style, gay comics, webcomics, humor, gay comic strip, fanart, yaoi fangirls, HIV, AIDS

Sorry I’m a little late in updating today. I stayed up too late last night, indulging in one of my secret guilty pleasures with one of my best friends: curling up on the couch and watching chick flicks until we cried and laughed all at once. Sometimes you just need a night of Smirnoff Ice, cigarettes (hush, Sihaya, I only had one; you know I don’t smoke anymore), and laughing over the fact that you can both still remember the lyrics to Brandy’s “Sittin’ Up in My Room” perfectly and you can’t help getting up to dance when you hear “so I creep, yeah, just keep it on the down low”.

The funny part about that is that while I can get away with that without shame, just by being the type of guy who just does what he does without caring whether it’s considered masculine or feminine…he’s this big, butch bruiser who always has to be the manly-man. He’d be utterly humiliated if I mentioned him by name here, or if anyone knew that he actually watched a chick flick…and enjoyed it. Ha. He was crying thirty minutes into Waiting to Exhale; it took me at least an hour to start the waterworks. (I think the line that got me was “Someone felt that way about me, once…but he stopped.”) Still…as a result of our escapades, I went to bed rather late and overslept today. And here I am now, looking for something to talk about for today’s post before I head off to the post office to finally mail off a certain insufferable a**hole’s package.

Well, for starters, don’t forget that this Sunday, December 16th, at 5p Central Standard Time (if you don’t know when that is in your time zone, check here) marks the first (experimental) Darkside Rainbow Live Webcast, in which I will try my damnedest to keep from tripping over my tongue for an hour of live interactive talk radio…even if I still don’t know what the hell I’m going to say and my stage fright is mounting more and more the closer we get to the date. I’ve worked out how to get the bloody thing to work in IE (sort of), so there shouldn’t be too many people barred from listening. If you miss it or if the live broadcast player doesn’t work from your OS or browser, I’ll be posting the chat transcript and an MP3 of the audio later, using the Flash player currently in use for the streaming radio.

Next, we’re already close to the halfway point on the 1,500 Comments Contest. We’d jumped off again at 1,000, with 500 comments to hit the goal. We’re currently at 1,205, in a surprisingly short period of time. If you’ve no idea what I’m talking about, check out the second half of this post with the rules and the prize (a 1GB MP3 player).

Moving on to more serious news: I’m a few days late on this one, but that doesn’t mean it’s not still a valid point for discussion. Every time I start to think that we as a society have begun to make forward-thinking cultural progress, someone proves me wrong. It’s only a little more disturbing when that “someone” is a prominent political figure and presidential hopeful.

Huckabee refuses to retract ‘92 remarks on AIDS patients - CNN.com

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee refused to retract a statement he made in 1992 calling for the isolation of AIDS patients.

Surging in the polls, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee campaigns Saturday in Asheville, North Carolina.

Responding to an Associated Press questionnaire, Huckabee said steps should be taken to “isolate the carriers of this plague” during his failed run for a U.S. Senate seat from Arkansas 15 years ago.

He said he probably would not make the same statement today because of what is known about how HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is transmitted.

“I had simply made the point — and I still believe this today — that in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when we didn’t know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols that we would have acted,” Huckabee told Fox News on Sunday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 1985 that AIDS was not transmitted by casual contact. But Huckabee said at the time, “there were other concerns being voiced by public health officials.”

He disputed the characterization that he was calling for individuals infected with HIV to be quarantined.

“Now, would I say things a little differently in 2007? Probably so,” Huckabee told Fox News. “But I’m not going to recant or retract from the statement that I did make because, again, the point was not saying we ought to lock people up who have HIV/AIDS.”

Huckabee did not explain how individuals with HIV would have been isolated.

During his Senate run, Huckabee also told the AP in the questionnaire that he found homosexuality to be “an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle.”

As always, I’ve got to play the Devil’s advocate first. It makes me feel better about turning around and calling someone an absolute arse.

To be fair, Huckabee refused to retract his words not because he’s still just as uneducated about HIV/AIDS, but because he’s trying to point out that at the time he made that statement, he was speaking with the more limited knowledge that he had available and making a statement based on what he thought was his best judgment and in the interests of public safety. (Although really, Huckabee was still pretty far behind, considering he made that statement in 1992 when the transmission methods for AIDS were known by 1985, but I’m trying to be a little lenient here.) I’m not saying that I think his judgment was right, but I do think the media are putting a more sensationalist spin on his intentions by making it sound as if he’s still actively advocating sequestering HIV/AIDS sufferers. He admits that with the information available about HIV/AIDS today, his judgment would likely follow a different slant. That should be enough; a retraction really isn’t necessary, though a more clearly stated, honest admission of his ignorance would be nice.

But the media are using his statement about HIV/AIDS to cast an even uglier light on his already-reprehensible stance towards gays, because there’s an instinctive association between the two subjects. If he was talking today about isolating people with some new, viciously fatal disease whose methods of transmission were unknown but that wasn’t in any way related to a divisive political and personal issue, people would say that he was acting in the interests of public health and safety by making sure that the disease couldn’t become an epidemic while we endeavored to understand more about how it’s communicated.

Ech. That almost makes me sound like I support the arse’s foot-in-mouth syndrome; really, I just can’t stand media sensationalism even when it’s turned on those I oppose. But without further ado and fairness aside…

I refuse to listen to rhetoric about sin from a man who had a role in pardoning a convicted rapist. Follow your own damned dogma; aren’t those who scream about the sin of homosexuality also the ones who advocate “let he who hath no sin cast the first stone”? I’m really getting sick of religious ideals being used to sway people’s political choices; how many times have I ranted about separation of church and state? How many times have I snarled about people trying to force their personal ideals on others through manipulation of the law? How many times have I said that one’s sexuality should be one’s own business and not a matter that concerns either church or state?

You know, I’m starting to wonder if there’s some kind of fear underlying people’s religious endorsement of their viciously antipathetic reactions to homosexuality. No, I don’t mean the cliched argument of “you’re afraid of homosexuality because you’re denying your own homosexuality”, although at times that has been the case.

I mean fear of admitting one’s own subjectivity, and owning one’s own biases and flaws without looking for excuses to make them acceptable. I’ve yet to find anyone who could explain a logical reason for their vituperative condemnation beyond that it’s “sinful”, “unnatural”, and “against God”. I just want one person to say “God’s got nothing to do with it; homosexuality just personally grosses me out”. I’d think it was a bit immature, but it would be refreshingly honest, and founded in someone’s personal feelings (kind of like me saying bananas gross me out, frigging fruit of the devil) rather than using a smokescreen of faith to make themselves feel justified in acting on a base dislike with no rhyme or reason.

Hiding behind faith ensures that people aren’t exposed for enacting such gross hatreds towards other human beings based on irrational gut feelings alone, and possibly judged by others for it. I wouldn’t be surprised if people were truly afraid of admitting such, when really it would do everyone a lot of good if homophobes could approach it from the simple perspective of likes vs. dislikes rather than looking for a torch to wave as an excuse to force their opinions and their dislike on others. It would sure as hell make a lot more sense.

After all, I don’t try to make everyone stop eating bananas, do I?

waiting to exhale, chick flicks, boys’ girly night in, darkside rainbow live webcast, comments contest, hiv, aids, mike huckabee, foot in mouth syndrome

Yesterday was not a pretty day in gay and lesbian news. To take a look at a few of the highlights (since I can’t in good conscience say “lowlights” without feeling as cheesy as Hikaru):

Shepard Hate Crime Bill To Be Dropped: While I’m still rather cynical in my stance towards use of emotionally-charged phrases like “hate crime” in the criminal justice system, it still bothers me to see that this bill is being pushed by the wayside. Regardless of the words used to describe it, people are still victimized every day out of prejudice against their sexuality. If other minority groups gain special protections under hate crime laws, then it’s entirely unfair (since when was life ever fair?) to leave the GBLTQ community out.

In some ways it’s unfair that anyone should have more protections under the law than anyone else - or stronger penalties, which imply stronger protections through greater punishment as a means of discouragement. But hate crime laws do some good in forcing people to understand that prejudice-related crimes aren’t acceptable, hopefully leveling the playing field a bit…unless you bat for the other team, that is. Reportedly the Democrats are resigned to sidelining the bill after a threatened White House veto. What was that about “Relax, it’s all right, the Democrats are in charge now”? Pfft.

Iran Executes 21 Year Old Accused Of Gay Sex When He Was 13: …then again, the next time I feel the need to complain about the state of gay rights in the US, perhaps I should spend a day or two in Iran. Unfortunately, I doubt I’d ever make it back home. In a rather convoluted trial, a man was spared execution for the sake of a retrial only to be summarily executed ten days later. The article itself is confusing, mentioning never accusing the man of rape - when at that age, wouldn’t he have likely been a rape victim, and thus possibly spared the death penalty? Regardless, the entire affair is sickening. No homosexuals in Iran, eh? One way or another…

HIV-Pos Navy Priest Charged With Unprotected Sex: Dear United States Navy: STOP SCREWING UP. Thank you. Sweet honkin’ Jeebus, what are you teaching these people? In a lovely two-for-one shot, a gay Roman Catholic Priest has been charged with knowingly having unprotected sex with military men without informing them of his HIV+ state. From the article: “Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Matthew Lee, 42, is charged with sodomy, aggravated assault, indecent assault, fraternization and conduct unbecoming a military officer.” Um. You know, I don’t think that’s what they mean by “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I’d be laughing out of sheer schadenfreude at the situation (come on, two of the loudest anti-gay protesters rolled into one?) if the entire situation wasn’t so horrific. Who knows how many of those men were infected and their lives destroyed?

Well, that was a lovely, depressing little romp through the news.

Maybe I’ll stick to airing little bits of my dirty laundry and using them to chastise my peers. That theme seems to be working for me.

Edit/Update: Prize for the 1,500 Comments Contest

Just thought I’d let you know that I snagged something for the prize in the second incarnation of the comments contest: a Sandisk Sansa 1GB MP3 player.

In pink.

Because that amuses the bloody hell out of me.

We’re already at 1,126 comments, though…er…[cough] …a large portion of that may be my fault. Ahem. Anyway. Rules are the same; spam comments/comments just to inflate the comment count will be deleted; my comments and pingback link comments count to raise the comment count but don’t count to win, and whoever gets the 1,500th comment (or the first qualifying comment after 1,500) wins.

And to answer a question from last time: international readers do qualify to win. International shipping on small, lightweight items is generally quite cheap, and customs isn’t a problem when I mark it as a gift.

Matthew Shepard hate crime bill, iran, Makvan Mouloodzadeh, Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Matthew Lee, HIV/AIDS, in the Navy

Er. Hi. It’s a little late, isn’t it? I didn’t run away; I just got caught up in work and writing this morning. Mainly writing. Hush. I’ll behave myself again after NaNoWriMo’s over.

There doesn’t seem to be much explosively new going on on the news front this morning, anyway. People are b*tching about ENDA, churches are still screeching about allowing GBLTQ parishioners to have certain freedoms or even say anything, and election BS is keying up to levels so high I’m starting to wonder where I left my thigh-high boots.

In other words, to quote Stephen King yet again: SSDD. Same sh*t, different day. Sometimes I wonder if anything’s really ever going to change, or if we’ll be fighting the same battles and having the same petty arguments all our lives.

In browsing the ‘net, though, I ran across something that rather baffled me: an article discussing statistics on a failed HIV vaccine. The article notes that out of test groups of people given the vaccine (synthetic HIV genes tucked into the good ol’ common cold, intended to stimulate the body to fight off HIV as it fights off the cold) vs. people given a dummy vaccine, a higher percentage of those given the vaccine actually went on to contract HIV.

It doesn’t say why.

It says they were more likely to contract HIV through sex or other risky behavior, but the details are still woefully skimpy despite a multi-paragraph article. Did these people engage in more risky behavior because they thought the vaccine would protect them? Did they deliberately ignore the fact that sex partners or others they shared bodily fluids with were HIV positive, because of the vaccine? Or did they go about their normal behavior, and likely would have ended up infected with HIV anyway with the vaccine only slightly increasing their risk?

The article is just entirely puzzling and vague, and it raises another question that wasn’t addressed: could they have been infected with HIV from the synthetic genes alone, rather than just lowering their resistance to it so they were more likely to be infected with the virus when exposed to it “in the wild”?

This sort of testing makes me extremely nervous, honestly. I’m all for developing preventative measures to help defend against HIV/AIDs, but this is a deadly disease with no cure and limited treatment options. You’d think they’d be a bit more certain of what they were doing to their test groups before they forged on ahead.

Something about this just doesn’t sit right with me.

And that’s all I have to say for the day. See you Monday with another page of No Style (with actual drawings this time).

HIV/AIDS, hiv vaccine, failed hiv vaccine

Passing out for a while…really didn’t make me feel any better, unfortunately. I’m really not feeling up to one of my usual dissertations today, so I’m just going to leave you guys with some links to a few points of interest for the day. Sorry, guys. Hopefully a weekend’s rest will fix everything.

Song Links Saggy Pants to Being Gay: Although this is horribly homophobic and of course assumes that being identified as gay because your arse is hanging out (and apparently on offer), this still cracks me up. It’s part of a citywide campaign to stop “saggin’”, a fashion faux paus that’s been around for years: wearing your pants practically around your knees. The whole thing’s just ridiculous, honestly - that anyone would wear their pants that way, and that anyone would use slurs on sexuality to try to get them to stop.

Florida Prison Guards Disciplined for Allowing “Gay Wedding”: Officiate a fake lesbian inmate wedding that is in no way legally binding, and lose your job. No, I’m serious. Just because two lesbian inmates staged a fake wedding, the guards who allowed and witnessed it were either fired, resigned, or suspended. Not only that, but the women were separated, with one sent to another facility. Am I the only one who thinks that’s a little much? It’s not like they staged a riot, and prisons put on various inmate performances all the time, such as plays and talent shows (and reenactments of Thriller…). If they wanted, they could look at this as another inmate group activity, rather than flipping their sh*t and punishing people so broadly for something that basically has no effect anyway and didn’t place those gathered at any more risk than other group activities. Last I checked, few prison guards had the power of ordained priests anyway.

Gay Baby Creates Controversy in Italy: This one is my favorite out of the lot for today. I don’t know if you remember when Sihaya sent in an Ask Adri question regarding shock advertising and some interesting ad campaigns shown in Europe, but this is the latest in one such campaign: a newborn child with “HOMOSEXUAL” stamped on its wristband instead of the usual birth information. The poster was widely circulated in Tuscany, Italy as an effort to promote activism and awareness of discrimination. Personally, I love it. I think it’s striking, compelling, and gets a very clear point across. The people of Tuscany…not so impressed. Even gay activists there think it’s over the top. What do you think?

More Toddlers Infected With HIV In Kyrgyzstan Scandal: On a more serious front…the latest in the mess in Kyrgyzstan involving hospital staff accidentally infecting people with HIV has gone so far as to affect 2-and-3-year-old children with the disease, by transfusing them with tainted blood or injecting them with tainted needles. People have been fired over this, but that’s not going to fix anything for those children. Maybe they can be among the first to receive ready treatment from the latest HIV miracle therapy…but they’ll still be on medication for the rest of their lives.

Update on the comments contest

We are currently at 757 out 1,000 comments, leaving 243 to go. C’mon, guys, you can do better than that. (Or did I just offer crappy prizes? Maybe I should do another survey; that gets you guys talking…)

Oogh. Okay, sitting upright is getting to be problematic; I think it’s time to go curl up in bed with the rest of the day’s workload for my other job, try to plow through that, and then read my new book (hush, it’s a recaptured piece of my childhood) until I fall asleep. I’ll see you guys with a new comic on Monday; have a good weekend.

Ciao,
~Adri

Forget the coffee; it’s time to break out the champagne. That’s right, I’m posting about something good for once. In fact, I’m a bit surprised this isn’t getting more coverage. Check it out:

Researchers Knock Out HIV - ScienceDaily.com

ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2007) — With the latest advances in treatment, doctors have discovered that they can successfully neutralise the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The so-called ‘combination therapy’ prevents HIV from mutating and spreading, allowing patients to rebuild their immune system to the same levels as the rest of the population.

To date, it represents the most significant treatment for patients suffering from HIV.

Professor Jens Lundgren from the University of Copenhagen, together with other members of the research group EuroSIDA, have conducted a study, which demonstrates that the immune system of all HIV-infected patients can be restored and normalised. The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment.

[...]Combination therapy prevents the virus from forming and mutating in human beings. When the virus is halted in its progress, the number of healthy CD4+T cells begins to rise and patients, who would otherwise die from HIV, can now survive. The immune system is rejuvenated and is apparently able to normalise itself, providing that the combination therapy is maintained. The moment the immune system begins to improve, the HIV-infected patient can no longer be said to be suffering from an HIV infection or disease, already declining in strength.

The only pessimistic comment I can think of here is a fear that the therapy won’t ever make it into general practice in the United States, for various reasons all tied to the rather messy political and economic state we’re in - and that similar reasons on a more dire scale will prevent the therapy from reaching third-world countries that need it even more desperately. Not everyone can afford to travel overseas for treatment that will save their lives. I have a few friends who are HIV+, and fighting it every day by living as healthily as they can…but still falling down that slope. Their healthy lifestyles just make it a slow, clawing descent rather than a rapid one. I’d love to see something like this give them a hand up. I just hope it won’t be too late - not just for my friends, but for the millions infected with HIV and suffering from AIDS worldwide.

I know it’s unrealistic to think that this combination therapy, most likely expensive, could be brought to those suffering in every corner of the earth. But a boy can dream anyway, can’t he?

And there’s always the fear that knowing a working treatment is available will cause gay men to be even more careless than we already are about unsafe sex, completely ignoring the possibility to contract other STDs…

No. I’m not going to go there today. I said this was a good-news day, and it’s going to stay that way instead of sinking underneath my eternal cynicism. I didn’t mean to bring things low after announcing such a wondrous breakthrough, so on a less serious front: taking a page from Lyndsey’s book (well, not literally), I’m holding a contest. It’s a silly contest, it’s an easy contest, and it’s a contest that’ll net you a Kingston 1GB DataTraveler USB drive, brand new, and a cameo spot as a character in No Style (what role you’ll fill…who knows; the winner and I can discuss that).

What are the rules of the contest?

Simple: be the 1,000th commenter. As I write this DR has a total of 729 comments, including pingbacks to old posts from newer posts or from offsite. Whoever posts the 1,000th comment wins. It’ll take a little while to get there, but I’ll periodically post updates to the overall comment count. Pingbacks do add to this comment count, but a pingback - even if it’s from your site - can’t win the contest. It has to be an actual comment from a person. If the 1,000th comment is a pingback or some other kind of automatically generated content, or if it’s a comment from me, then the prize will go to the 1001st comment.

Spamming BS just to raise the comment count will result in the comments being deleted from the overall count and me getting very, very irritated. Try not to do that.

So join in the discussion and you may get something out of it. Who knows, if this goes well I may make this an institution for various comment milemarkers. Good luck, and happy commenting!

…that sounded so cheesy. I’m out.

HIV/AIDS, combination therapy for hiv, professor jens lundgren, university of copenhagen, hiv treatment, no style, gay webcomic, gay comic strip, comments contest

Sorry I’m so late in updating today; it’s been a bit of a rough morning on the Adri front - and while I found it quite interesting that Yasser Arafat apparently died of AIDS most likely contracted during a homosexual relationship, I did not need to cruise the news to see this:

“MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21, in Defiance of God’s Warning: ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.’ Leviticus 18:22.”

Three guesses as to who that came from, first two wrong ones get you smacked with a frozen trout.

That’s right, our wonderful Reverend Fred Phelps. That right there is the proposed text of a monument that he keeps trying to have erected in Casper, Wyoming, alongside the new city monument representing various historical governing documents. Apparently desecrating the dead ranks right up there with the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and other texts that have become borderline sacred on U.S. soil.

That man can’t stay out of the news and he just can’t stop beating a dead horse, can he? Why is Phelps so desperate to deface the memory of a boy who lost his life so tragically? Does he have no compassion for his family, or even for the loss of another human being?

Nevermind. This is Phelps we’re talking about here. Of course he doesn’t. That man is a scourge upon the face of mankind, a rotting chancre of hatred festering upon the flesh of the earth. He is everything that he decries, and then some: a hypocrite advocating hatred, advocating atrocities against human beings, in the name of his idea of what a Christian God wants. The man is severely twisted and I only hope that one day, somehow, he wakes up enough to understand the madness that he’s been perpetuating through his acts and through what he teaches his family and followers.

Let Matthew Shepard rest in peace. Let the VA Tech victims rest in peace. Stop being a coward, Phelps, and attacking the dead who cannot fight back…or you may come to regret it more than you think. Cross the wrong lines, and the living will fight back on their behalf, and one day you may incite backlash that you cannot handle, no matter how richly deserved.

And frankly, I don’t want to besmirch my karma by wishing that on you.

casper wyoming, matthew shepard, reverend fred phelps, wbc, westboro baptist church, AIDS, Palestine, yasser arafat

ACLU Acts Against RV Park Banning HIV+ 2 Yr Old From Pool - 365gay.com

(Montgomery, Ala.) The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the owner of the Wales West RV park in Silverhill, Ala., today demanding that it stop discriminating against people with HIV. The RV park banned a child with the disease from using the swimming pool, showers and other common areas of the park without his parent’s obtaining a letter from a doctor.

We’re going to avoid the wailing “but it’s just a chiiiiiiiild” angle since that’s just a cheap ploy on emotional heartstrings, although I doubt if this were an adult case it would have gained as much attention. The main issue that I’m focused on is the fact that an HIV+ positive person is, yet again, being treated like a leper due to ignorance.

You would think, in this day in age, people would be more educated about the reality of HIV and AIDs. HIV/AIDS requires concentration in hospitable bodily fluids for transmission - the primary fluids being blood and sexual emissions. You can not contract HIV/AIDS from:

holding hands;

kissing;

touching a handrail touched by an HIV+ individual;

using the same toilet as an HIV+ individual;

using the same shower as an HIV+ individual;

even kissing an HIV+ individual.

Considering the devastating effects that HIV has on the human body, it is surprisingly weak outside of a hospitable environment. Skin cells, saliva, and water do not count as a hospitable environment; there is almost 0% concentration of HIV in your average HIV+ patient’s saliva or skin, and HIV is not an airborne or waterborne pathogen. In the air, in plain water (don’t even get me started on chemical-inundated water), HIV will die.

Sexually transmitted disease. Do you understand this concept? There must be blood-to-blood contact or inundation of major bodily fluids on mucus membranes. So frankly you should not be worried about an HIV+ two-year-old in an RV park unless you really think some of your tenants are that interested in having sex with a two-year-old…and in that case, you’ve got much bigger problems. There is a very thin possibility of blood-to-blood infection; children are prone to falling and injuring themselves, especially when playing with other children. But do you really think this child’s foster parents are going to let that happen? Do you really think they won’t shadow that child everywhere and make sure that he doesn’t suffer so much as a single scratch? HIV+ children are in an already fragile state of health and require constant supervision.

So what are you afraid of? Are you so swayed by the propaganda about HIV/AIDS, the so-called “gay sex disease”, that you’re going to discriminate against someone who contracted this disease through no action of their own without truly understanding what you’re “protecting” people from? Do you even know what it is that you’re guarding against, or just following blind prejudice under the guise of playing the CYA game? Yes, you’ve got to cover your arse and think about liability and the safety of other tenants, as well as think of any possible legal angles. I understand that perfectly well, and in that case I can understand asking the parents of the child to take certain precautions.

But to bar the child from public areas of the park until the parents obtain a doctor’s letter? I don’t see that doctor’s letter as an olive branch, or even any sort of compromise. It’s an insult. It’s a bloody effin’ accusation.

The HIV+ are not lepers, and they shouldn’t be treated that way.

Educate yourselves. You’ll be a better person for it.

I’m out.

wales west rv park, hiv, aids, aclu

I’m not in the mood to be pissed off about gay news today. Being a blog columnist with a topic so political and divisive can be damned depressing sometimes, and today I refuse to do that. It’s my day off from my other jobs and I have all I need to relax right here: a huge mug of coffee, Haagen-Dazs flavored like Bailey’s Irish Cream (no, it’s not alcoholic), and some serious boy-toy eye candy to look at:

That, my friends, is Wentworth Miller, star of Fox’s Prison Break. I’ll confess, I had never taken more than a passing glance at the boy until now; I don’t watch TV, really. It’s just not my thing. I’m a book-nerd, I download a few hundred gigabytes of movies at a time on Vongo and love going to the movie theatre across the street from my apartment, and when I’m not reading I’m working on the novel or bumming around with the boyfriend. (Yes, I have one now. Long story.) But oh my, that piece of pretty right there might just change that when season three rolls around. I’m allowed to be shallow every once in a while, and I’d watch the show for him even if rumors weren’t floating around that he’s definitely gay and dating Luke McFarlane. That boy sets my adrenals off almost as much as Hugh Laurie or Vin Diesel. Yes, Vin Diesel. Every once in a while I get the hots for a big dumb lunk of smooth, bald-headed, gritty-voiced muscle.

While my mind is firmly entrenched in the gutter, though, let’s take a serious second to divert and talk about something sexual that’s not so sexy: STDs. You know it’s a serious issue in the gay community, unless you’ve had your head firmly buried in the sand. And it’s getting more serious:

U.S. tracks serious form of syphilis in gay men - Yahoo News

A particularly serious form of the sexually transmitted bacterial disease syphilis has been detected in gay and bisexual U.S. men infected with the AIDS virus, federal health officials reported on Thursday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked 49 HIV-infected gay and bisexual men who had “symptomatic early neurosyphilis” from January 2002 to June 2004 in four cities — Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, New York.

The CDC cited the report as further evidence that gay and bisexual men, many also infected with HIV, are the driving force behind increases in U.S. syphilis cases this decade.

The findings also indicate that these men are engaging in the same risky, unprotected sex that can spread the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS.

I can not stress enough that no matter how invincible you think you are, no matter how much you might think it’ll be okay “just this one time” because hey, what are the odds: always practice safe sex. I have too many friends, my generation and older, who are just too careless and reckless - in fact, it’s an unfortunate stereotype of the gay community that too many of us reinforce. Indiscriminate and unsafe sex. Why do we do it when we know the risks? Because it feels better that way?

Yeah, and I’m sure dealing with whatever disease you picked up, every day for the rest of your life, feels great. Guys: please, please make sure you use a condom. It’s not just there to prevent pregnancy, as that sure as hell ain’t a concern when you and your partner have the same junk ridin’ around in your jeans. Guys and girls: get tested regularly, whether you’re frequently sexually active or just have a one-nighter here and there, and be careful whose bodily fluids go where if you’re with someone that hasn’t been recently tested and that you don’t trust implicitly. Even if you’re in a long-term relationship and you trust the other person enough to have unprotected sex with them, both of you should be tested regularly not because you don’t trust each other, but for your own health. Sexually transmitted diseases are not to be taken lightly; they can infect you for life, and shorten that life expectancy severely.

I shouldn’t have to tell you that. But considering the statistics of STDs in the gay community, obviously many of us are far too careless, and we need all the reminders we can get.

Be safe. Care enough about yourself, and about others, to take that little extra step.

I am out of here, kids, so have a good weekend and I’ll see you Monday with a new No Style comic.

Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do before a few tequila shots,
~Adri

wentworth miller, luke mcfarlane, prison break, stds, unsafe sex, sexually transmitted diseases, hiv, aids, syphilis

You know what? People make my head hurt. And sometimes, skimming headlines in gay news is enough to make me descend from cynicism into downright misanthropy. Humanity is depressing. Games of he-said-she-said, discrimination, entitlement…when the hell is it all going to stop?

Wondering what I’m talking about? Let’s take a cruise through a few selected headlines.

Gay groups call for homophobic lawmaker’s job - Advocate.com

A Florida legislator who allegedly told a group of HIV/AIDS activists and lobbyists that his gay cousin deserved to die after contracting AIDS has sparked an outcry.

Gay and AIDS activists have called for everything from a formal censure of Republican representative D. Alan Hays to his being removed from the state house of representatives.

Minutes after a Friday press conference with many groups, Hays released a statement denying the alleged comments.

Well? Who’s telling the truth? On one hand I’m not the type to blindly support anyone’s claims of anti-gay statements without validation just because “hey, I’m gay too, and I support the cause so if they say it it must be true!” But on the other hand…according to the article, Hays already has a previous record of publicly spoken anti-gay sentiment. Past actions don’t automatically indicate guilt in current situations, but they do point towards a tendency to repeat said situations. Either way, someone is lying - either the activists or Hays. That, more than anything, pisses me off.

Which one? Your call. Likely we’ll never know. Let’s move on, shall we?

Grocer pulls gay papers from rack - The Washington Times

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A regional homosexual newspaper has been pulled from racks at Nashville-area Kroger grocery stores; the newspaper’s publisher calls the action discriminatory. [...] A Kroger Co. spokeswoman said the Cincinnati-based company has a policy against displaying publications that promote “political, religious or other specific agendas” and cited the need to remain neutral.

Newspaper supporters say Kroger enforces the policy inconsistently, noting that Kroger allows the display of homosexual newspapers at its stores in other markets, such as Atlanta, and alternative weekly newspapers with political columns and ads for strip clubs in the Nashville area.

Oh, just come out and say it. Someone in that store has some whiny little homophobic issue with the newspaper, but when pulling the papers based on discriminatory personal preference turned into a problem, they tried to backpedal and pull the company policy excuse. If you’re going to enforce company policy, enforce it uniformly. Don’t pick and choose who’s going to hide behind it whenever it’s convenient and who’s going to ignore it.

But you want to see the one that really twists my weave? (No, I don’t really have a weave.)

Catholic ‘witch-hunt’ to expose gay clergy - TimesOnline.co.uk

Patricia McKeever does not like to be photographed. She does not like people to know where she lives and prefers to communicate with the outside world by letter or e-mail.

But, from the security of her home, the 58-year-old former secondary school teacher has co-ordinated a relentless campaign to name and shame gay Roman Catholic priests.

Hey, lady? Hypocrisy’s a sin, too, while you’re going through your list and checking off the “thou shalls” and “thou shalt nots”. You know, the hypocrisy you’re practicing when you’re dragging people’s private lives - which are none of your damned business - into the public eye and yet refuse to let your life be invaded in the same way?

It’s difficult enough to be a gay member of the clergy. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is as stringent as it is in the U.S. military, and can have the same results: expulsion. These men are trying to live their lives and devote themselves to service to a faith that they believe in without letting said faith’s stigma against the way they were born interfere with that. They’re trying to do good things for their community and for their religion while avoiding dealing with falsely labeling stereotypes almost always assumed about gay clergy members.

They’re trying to be good Christians. There aren’t many of those left, it seems, or so I’m gathering from reading the news every day. And this one busybody thinks it’s her business to expose them, publicly defame them, and interfere in their valid right to live as best they can while trying to reconcile their sexuality and the tenets of their faith?

I find that wholly disgusting.

Some days, it just doesn’t pay to read the news.

I need my thrice-damned coffee.

HIV, AIDS, florida, representative alan hays, nashville, kroger, gay newspaper, patricia mckeever, catholicism, gay priests

The following was submitted as an “Ask Adri” question, but while I’m honestly not sure what constructive opinion I could offer on this, I wanted to share it with everyone anyway. (Warning: graphic imagery ahead.)

Dear Adrien,

I wanted your take on the anti-discrimination campaign that started here last week to make people aware of the new laws Europe instated.

There’s posters, post cards, spots on tv and banners on the internet. The slogan is ‘Discriminating is illegal. And inhuman.’
In these pictures, people’s bodies are shown, and they have labels sewed on.

Amongst others, there’s a woman in a wheelchair with the label ‘dead weight’. There’s a coloured boy labeled ’scum’. There’s a young mother who’s pregnant with her second child labeled ‘takes advantage’. And there’s two guys kissing. One is labeled ‘abnormal’, the other ‘contagious’. (I added the picture, the only one I could find was of the gay couple, it’s the French version though.)

In the TV spot The label he get’s sewed on says ‘different’, and the voices in the back are saying:
‘They just don’t want to work, those parasites…’
‘If I get to choose, I’d rather hire a man for this job…’
‘You can never be too carefull, with all that AIDS and stuff…’
‘Those people don’t care about getting a job, they’re all scum.’

You can imagine the reactions. Half the people don’t care, one quarter is shocked and appalled, and the rest of us think it’s brilliant, daring, will open many eyes.

Me, I cringe when I see the spot on tv. You actually see them sew the label on. I’m not sure what to think. It could be good, really good. But it might be too much. Harsh images and shock effects can certainly work, but… It’s a double edged blade.

What do you think?

The TV spot in question:

Give me a second to stop squirming. Oh, jeebus. The video itself isn’t that bad; I just have issues with needles going into anything other that cloth. (Adri + syringes = NO.)

Truthfully I don’t even think there’s that much shock value involved, but then I’ve seen worse in American adverts, so I may be the wrong person to ask; cultural differences have probably desensitized me to this sort of thing. Still, I can see where some would be incensed or disturbed by this sort of advertising.

The question to ask is this: is it shocking enough to get them to take notice, and then stop and consider the message - or is it so shocking that the message is lost in the horrified reaction to the imagery? I think in this case it’s the former; yes, it’s a little graphic, but no more graphic than watching House or Grey’s Anatomy, and the graphic imagery isn’t played up to grotesque extremes. There’s just enough to be effective and to make sure that you’re paying attention while the point is driven home. At the same time it gives you something to think about on a more subtle level: those labels are painful. In the advert they become physically painful rather than emotionally painful, but the implication of pain is there and registers on a subconscious level to lead people closer to understanding that discrimination hurts in many ways.

When shock advertising is used with immaturity, where the blatant goal is only to disgust while the message itself is secondary, it fails and becomes a cause for public outcry. I don’t think this is one of those situations. I think it was handled with tact and maturity and even if I’m squirming looking at those needles, I admire how cleverly it was done.

I told you I have nothing of value to offer here, but that’s my opinion. Maybe others reading this will have a different take on things. Either way, thank you for sharing this with everyone.

Needle-phobically yours,
~Adri

Have a question you’d like to see answered on Ask Adri? E-mail your question to adrien-luc.sanders@451press.net with the subject “Ask Adri Question” or use the Contact Form to send your question in.

ask adri, anti-discrimination campaigns, shock advertising, labels

There are days when I find trawling through the news to be wholly depressing. Despite reading the heartening news that New Hampshire’s governor has officially signed into effect legislation establishing same-sex unions, I couldn’t help but be horrified at what I stumbled upon after that:

Four Held In Bizarre HIV Injection Case - 365Gay.com

 
(Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Four men are accused of drugging, raping and then injecting their male victims with their own HIV-infected blood Dutch police have announced.

Remember the other day, when I said that I couldn’t really see gays forming roving gangs to assault people? Okay, I’m eating my words right now. And they taste damned bitter. Granted, the situation isn’t the same as the hypothetical proposed in Monday’s article.

It’s much, much worse.

It’s worse than the stories of needles dipped in HIV-infected blood left in movie theatre seats. It’s even worse than the careless negligence of those who are HIV+ and choose to have unprotected sex with willing partners without informing them (although that ranges pretty closely). It’s a disgusting and immoral violation of another human being, through rape in order to spread a terminal illness.

I thought we, as human beings, were better than that. I thought that we had evolved as a species beyond such behavior save for in isolated individuals. I am aware that many groups (known as “bug chasers“) exist consisting of people who want to infect others and who want to be infected, as an underground sexual + acceptance subculture that borders on fetishism. I can’t say I approve of their choices or their desires, but where there’s consent involved I can’t do more than shake my head and recommend a psychiatric evaluation. Every once in a while they cross the line into malicious misinformation and nonconsent, but I’ve never seen it happen as an organized group committing multiple acts of assault and rape with effects more permanent and deadly than the physical and psychological trauma resulting from rape.

“The motive to do this was the ‘kick,’ and the feeling that unsafe sex is ‘pure.’”

I think I’m going to be sick.

What thrill is worth this?

Not only the sacrifice of your life, but the lives of others - and of your own basic human decency?

I weep for the men whose lives have been forever altered by these acts.

And I weep for the knowledge that we, as human beings, could behave so atrociously towards one another.

Update, 9:37 a.m. CST: Samantha has provided several links containing more information on the issue (see comments), but most notable is the story of the investigation into a subsection of the Netherlands HIV Foundation and whether or not they’ve been encouraging unsafe sex by organizing Poz & Proud sex parties.

This just gets worse with each new possibility.

hiv, aids, bug chasers, infection, human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, new hampshire, civil unions, same-sex unions, netherlands hiv foundation, hvn