What We've Already Lost

A few years ago unsafe sex was called "unsafe sex." But now, with the emergence of the vastly popular Xtube and the heightened popularity of production companies like Treasure Island Media who make all-bare-all-the-time porn movies "unsafe sex" is now almost exclusively referred to as "bareback." No longer are people having unsafe sex, people now are having bareback sex.

Unsafe sex had an important context to the term itself. "Un" and "safe" as in, "not safe" or the sex that you're having is "unsafe." In my experience, in what seems like no more than two years, I've seen the rapid transformation from unsafe to bareback. Of course, this worries me.

Bareback has no connotations referring to unsafe or risky behavior. Despite the fact that bareback sex is defined as sex with no condoms, the word bareback shows no reflection of this. One might argue, "duh, the word bare is in it!" But bare is nowhere near as hard-hitting and exact as unsafe. In addition, the word bareback has inevitably gained a cultural fetish. Unsafe sex used to be just that, unsafe sex, but now bareback has become a type of gay sex. It's neither here nor there, rather it has become a way of having sex and thus the safe sex movement has already, with a rapid subtlety lost so much.

In our history there were two ways to have sex. Either safe or unsafe. But now there's bareback and it's a new way for gay men to have sex. It's almost as if bareback has created a third category. There is safe and unsafe and now bareback. In previous posts I made the distinction between those who occasionally engage in individual experiences of unsafe sex as people who have unsafe sex, and those who top or bottom, with no condoms whatsoever, as barebackers. But the line that differentiates the two is blurring and bareback is taking a strident lead.

It's gone from "we didn't have safe sex" to "we had bareback sex." Troubling? I thinks so.

The cultural fetishization of bareback asks the modern gay man to waver between what he knows is right and challenges him to tickle the idea of what is wrong. Bareback is successful in its allure. Like taking candy from a stranger, the idea of bareback causes us to tempt the idea of doing something we know is bad or wrong and to enjoy it in the against-the-grain notion of it all. If you don't agree with me then have a glance at some of the titles on the porn shelves. "Bad Influence," "Fearless," "Deeper," and "What I Can't See." All of these titles rather explicitly ask you to cross the line and even, I'll take it further, call those who have safe sex fearful, if not boring and clinical. These companies and films use our own protective nature as an enemy agent against ourselves.

Something is happening in our community and we're losing ground. Think about it - when was the last time you heard the word unsafe compared to the last time you heard the word bareback? Go on to Xtube, bareback is inescapable and the popularity, wild. I've seen comments like "fuck the condom queens" and in a film where an older top is banging away at a young bottom, "breed his ass." It's one thing if two young guys are having unsafe sex with each other, that is at least, in my opinion somewhat excusable but an older man, unsafely topping a younger man, is just sad. These men have the opportunity of mentoring the younger generation and protecting them. Instead its become the complete opposite. We are now celebrating the disregard for safety and welcoming in a fresh new batch of unhealthy recruits. Granted, 18 makes one an adult, but put it this way: Say an 18 year old gets a tattoo. When the 18 year old becomes a 22 year old, does that tattoo still mean what it meant to him at 18? Therefore, the decisions of an 18, 19, 20 and so-on year old would not be the same at 25, 30 or 35. Should these young men get HIV because at 18 they made a few foolish mistakes and let themselves trust the actions of an older man?

What has happened and why have we given up? When did protecting and caring for one another become this "I don't give a fuck who you are or what you do - go fuck yourself" laissez fair attitude?

It is dangerous for somebody like me to write this post because if there is anything I support it is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In no way do I advocate censorship, which in this case, I could be easily mistaken for doing so. But I stand firm in the belief that HIV and sexually transmitted diseases would still be around if every porn, ever made had condom usage in it. The fact remains that people are going to do what they're going to do and there's nothing you can do about it other than try to influence people to make the right choices for themselves. People can argue all they want that bareback porn is the same as watching a violent movie. It will always come back to the idea that: Just because I watch a violent movie doesn't cause me to kill people just like watching bareback porn will not cause me to engage in risky behavior. Let's go even further and say that in some cases having bareback porn would prevent people from engaging in unsafe sex because they get their fill of the idea by just watching the films. Understandable, for sure. But be aware, my brothers, for this industry is not unlike Hollywood. They like your money and don't give a fuck about you. Don't come crying to them when shit hits the fan - in the end, YOU'RE the one who makes the decision and they will never be to blame. That's a key factor to their adamant, unapologetic success.

Protease inhibitors have only been around for 12 years. It has only been 12 years that gay men have been living healthy with HIV. Why are we so myopic to think things will follow suit? Who is to say things will not change? And, if things stay the same, why aren't we preparing the next generation? Are we really that tired? Are we really that over it? Have the pros and cons really become the same thing?

It's like all the sudden everyone got healthy and bam! we're living in a new world. Really, it's quite the contrary. Nothing has changed. The infection rates are still relatively the same and HIV still exists. The only difference is we have lost the idea of unsafe and we are embracing the idea of bareback. So, you tell me, with what we've already lost - how bright is our future?

Awwwwwwww FREAK OUT

...Just in case anybody felt the need to hit the panic button when the CDC announced their annual estimate of 40,000 people infected by HIV per year is actually around 55,0000...Don't! There's no need to.

Just to be clear- this doesn't mean there are any new increases or spikes in infection rates, all it means is now that the CDC has better testing procedures and models the estimated 40,000 cases, is and has been, higher than originally perceived. The number of infections per year have maintained relatively the same it's just higher than the CDC initially thought based on old models and testing procedures.

The country had roughly 56,300 new HIV infections in 2006 - a dramatic increase from the 40,000 annual estimate used for the last dozen years. The new figure is due to a better blood test and new statistical methods, and not a worsening of the epidemic, officials said.

On one hand this can be looked at as good news because the CDC has better testing capabilities and thus a clearer picture of the epidemic and where it's heading. On the other hand, 56,000 is still a fuck-load of infections per year.

It's important to note that more than half of these infections are amongst gay and bisexual men and one-third are happening to men under 30.

Some experts celebrated that finding, saying it’s a tribute to prevention efforts, including nearly 200 syringe exchange programs now operating in 36 states despite a federal ban on funding for such projects.

But they also lamented the CDC’s finding that infections continue to increase in gay and bisexual men, who accounted for more than half of HIV infections in 2006. Also, more than a third of those with HIV are younger than 30.

....Some said more attention needs to focus on prevention among blacks, who account for nearly half of annual HIV infections, according to the new CDC report.

Again, as always, to keep these numbers down- keep this conversation on the table, respect yourself and your partner, communicate and use condoms. Easy enough.

Reading these articles and sifting through the statistics is never a fun nor easy task. In one of my previous posts entitled: "Serosorting, Barebackers, +'s and %'s Oh My!" I tackle the subject of the often hard-to-decipher statistical HIV reporting.

New Developments in HIV Cure

Never say Never:
via the Drudge Report:

Doctors may have found a way to destroy HIV

HOUSTON -- There is real hope that what’s happening in a Houston lab might lead to a cure for HIV.

“We have found an innovative way to kill the virus by finding this small region of HIV that is unchangeable,” Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston said.

Dr. Paul and Dr. Miguel Escobar aren’t talking about just suppressing HIV – they’re talking about destroying it permanently by arming the immune system with a new weapon lab tests have shown to be effective.

Ford Stuart has been HIV positive for 15 years. He’s on a powerful drug cocktail that keeps the disease in check.

“I’m on four different medications. Three of them are brand new, and it’s the first time that I’ve ever been non-detectible,” Stuart said. “I’m down to about – just for the HIV – about nine pills per day, five in the morning and four at night.”

But Stuart knows HIV mutates, and eventually it will learn how to outsmart his medications.

“The virus is truly complex and has many tricks up its sleeve,” Paul said.

But Dr. Paul thinks he’s cracked a code.

“We’ve discovered the weak spot of HIV,” he said.

Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV’s structure that does not mutate.

“The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel,” Paul said.

That Achilles heel is the doctors’ way in. They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme.

It’s naturally produced by people, like lupus patients. When they applied that abzyme to the HIV virus, it permanently disarmed it.

“What we already have in our hand are the abzymes that we could be infusing into the human subjects with HIV infection, essentially to move the virus,” Paul said.

Basically, their idea could be used to control the disease for people who already have it and prevent infection for those at risk.

The theory has held up in lab and animal testing. The next step is human trials.

Meanwhile, every day in Houston, three people are diagnosed with HIV.

The doctors still need funding to launch human trials. In the world of HIV research, that’s often where things fall apart.

“Clinical trials are very expensive,” Paul said.

“That is the worry of the researcher. This is what nightmares are made of – that after 30 years of work, you find it doesn’t work,” Paul said.

But so far, it is working.

“This is the holy grail of HIV research, to develop a preventative vaccine,” Paul said.

“If we can get the viral loads down to a manageable level, that will preclude the need for these conventional drugs,” Escobar said.

Still, even if everything goes well, it’s at least five years before the research could help people with HIV.

The doctors know people like Ford Stuart are waiting.

“There are so many people struggling with the disease because it affects not only your body, but also your psyche, how you perceive yourself,” he said.

If nothing else, the research is promising for the tens of millions waiting for a cure.

UPDATE: My handsome gorilla-looking peer and blogger friend, This Boy Elroy shines some scientific and professional light on this topic which you can see here.

A Reader Writes

After my Sirius Out Q Radio interview with Signoreli, a reader writes:

I've had AIDS for 17 years - the world has changed radically within that span. When it first appeared that an epidemic was looming, the gay community regarded it as yet another form of homophobia, bigotry and exclusion - it took quite some time for it to become 'real.' But by then, we'd all been touched - branded, eviscerated. The horrifying 'I told you so' shock settled into numbness as we took turns on deathbed watch, the toll mounting. A sense of futility permeated my life, but there was always a task at hand (another appointment to keep) to keep me on some sort of pathway. Me, at 28, strolling thru the nightmare, trying so hard to glimpse a deeper understanding of it all.

There is no long and short of it. AIDS has been institutionalized, turned into an ancillary commodity of the pharmaceutical industry. There is no road back from here. Sorry for the bad news, but we had a window in which to exercise prevention, enough for proof-of-concept, and it was a staggering success. As profound and unprecedented as the communal changing of gears may have been, the crucial momentum has been spent.

I now find myself identifying with wignut extraordinare and Obama nemesis Reverend Wright: the government may not have engineered the virus outright, but to stand by or actively oppose educational efforts that could have stemmed the spread is every bit as evil. He's deliberately adopted the shrill end of the message, forcing it upon the current campaign discussion volume cranked full-blast and has been vilified for it - but his wisdom that the only way to be heard above the manufactured distraction is to scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre is on-point. Just as I would do, given media proximity and a pulpit. Just as we did in ACT-UP. There is no message more crucial than sexual responsibility. Yet, is it an issue that can be! placed before the public? Madison Avenue clearly thinks not. My gut will always tell me that I have a moral obligation to force faces to the issue, but my brain clearly sees that tact as diplomatic disaster.

In my opinion (yes, I'm going to qualify) the biggest mistake in prevention was to approach prevention as a marketing problem. You can sell soap, but you can't sell depth of awareness. You can't sell involvement. Television and the media no longer confer any sort of credibility, but rather the opposite: mainstream media trivializes everything it touches. Another war, another three letter acronym - another commercial. Yawn. All you can do it push it away. Engaging in this sort of competition may have short term benefits if you can grab enough eyeballs, but good luck holding them in a world so filled with glittering commodities. I would encourage you to discard the methods of the past; everyone's picked up the modules of ! marketing to self-brand their image upon the world without any seeming awareness of the falseness of it all. (The myspace dilemma.)

So - cynical, heartbroken. Yes I admit it but I still want to find a way to be >relevant.< I think that building community is the task before us. TV and the media are relics of a society that didn't work out all that well. It's time to take it to the soil, start at ground zero, focus on finding ways to permit and encourage personal involvement. The message of prevention is always there (the requisite background of subliminal fear and loathing well established) but rather than exploiting or fetishizing it, invite the fear to confront the light of day. How? How to involve strength, clarity, purpose? Authenticity is a key component in cultivating a model for prevention. Recognition of heart and spirit, of a benevolent humanity that can only fall like rain on a culture so long lost in the desert. Connection is another element - my premise is that all humans seek community and it's hard-wired into our biology. Primates are social - politics are a perversion of that basic need. Channel the biologic imperative.

As far as the generational divide, don't give that myth any power. AIDS is primarily a disease of isolation, pushing you farther away the longer you survive. The oldies don't even talk to one another - much less the young. It's an artifact, not an intent. But, given the chance, whole universes of compassion and understanding are there awaiting release. I've seen death up close, and it is very personal - that's why seeing it on TV is so repellent.

This is something worth chewing on for a long while. I appreciate having received this letter and I thank the author tremendously for his input.

HIV Stops With Me Launches Massive Campaign

14th st. & 8th Ave. Subway station:
Campaign launched by HIVSTOPSWITHME.ORG














































Suddenly my morning commute was confronted by these huge unavoidable billboards hanging everywhere in the subway station. I commend the organization- I think this is a great and confrontational effort.

KnuckleCrack on SiriusOutQ

I'll be on the Michelangelo Signorile show on Sirius OutQ Radio this Thursday May 1st at 3:30PM EST/12:30PM PST talking about young gay activism, the current state of HIV/AIDS education and prevention campaigns, and the communication gap between older and younger gay generations.

If you have Sirius Radio tune into channel 109.
If you DO NOT have Sirius visit Siriusoutq.com click on "listen online" and then click on Free 3 Day Trial to tune in.

Link to Signorile's Blog

Tune in- Fierce out
Eric

Alternatives in Gay Safe Sex

The hell?! Female condoms?! Yup, you bet your bottom loving ass! There are other alternatives to gay safe sex which hardly get noticed. Discussion of the Female Condoms used for safe gay sex have been popping up left and right lately and it's time this conversation gets some legs.

When you have 5 minutes it's imperative that you go over to Bstewart23 and read his blog post about female condoms. This post is thoroughly detailed, honest and skips all the bullshit. It's essential this gets a look.
From the BStewart23 man himself:

You know me as a pretty easygoing kinda guy, but I must confess: nothing drives me crazier than the phrase “condom fatigue”, especially when it’s used to rationalize the stupid risks gay men take when it comes to their health and the health of those for whom they claim love and community. Do you hear about “seatbelt fatigue”? How about “not-drinking-gasoline fatigue”? Come on, grow the fuck up.

So, as I mentioned a couple of days ago, as I left my doctor’s office, after receiving the results of my 30th (or so) HIV test, my doc pressed a fistful of female condoms into my hand. “Now, more than ever,” he said. I replied with a “thanks, but… what are you talking about, the continuing — and very depressing — seroconversion rates among gay men?”

He said: “Well, there is that, but I’m talking about increasing stories from bottom guys who report that the condoms they thought were tightly rolled down their penetrators mysteriously disappear at some point in the action.”

The fuck? No, really. THE FUCK?!?

If you’re an HIV-negative gay man who wants to stay HIV-negative — and if you also like buttfucking — you have exactly two options:

1. Find yourself an HIV-negative partner with whom you trust your life and make a strict, no-exceptions monogamy pact — for the life of your relationship. Both of you get tested, both of you get tested again three months later, both of you get tested again three months after that and lose the condoms with the proviso that neither of you ever, ever strays, not even once. Ever.
   Good luck on that, by the way. I suppose it’s possible, in the same way that there are some truly extraordinary things possible in this world, but I’m realist enough to not bet my life on it. Whether you do or not is your choice. I’ve been around the block. I know how this gay monogamy thing usually works and, man, would it ever suck to find out your totally-monogamous boyfriend’s been messing around on you by finding out you just seroconverted.
2. Barrier protection, always following the proper usage guidelines to ensure maximum effectiveness.

I sincerely do wish there was a less blunt way to illustrate the situation and I totally wish there were more options to offer you, but there simply aren’t at this time, so make your choice now.

Actually, hold on, there’s more to Option #2 than you might be thus far aware. And, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why that is.

But first… I get it. Traditional condoms are a pain. They can tear, they’re constrictive, you’re limited to water-based lubricants, you’re allergic to latex. I know, I’ve heard it all. And my response is: replace the torn condom immediately, buy a bigger condom, buy a better water-based lube and use a polypropylene condom.

“I really want the intimacy of sex without condoms.” Good for you! I really want to win the lottery, pal, but the chance of doing that (without risking far more than I’m willing to risk) approaches zero. Besides, you’re side-tracking this discussion in 2008 with your unrealistic dreams. Wake the fuck up.

And now you’re thinking “okay, b, I know your drill, what are you getting at? It’s not like I didn’t see the mock ad at the top of the post, anyway, so spill.”

So, yeah, what you probably haven’t heard, or what you might’ve heard and haven’t yet seriously considered, is that there’s another form of barrier protection for Men Who Like To Stick Their Wieners In Other Men’s Buns, and that form of protection is…

Female Condoms.

Huh? Female condoms? Simply (and, again, bluntly) stated, they’re bags you stick in your butt so the guy porking you doesn’t need to wear one. And the receptive partner has more control than with regular condoms. They’re made of polypropylene, they’re stronger than latex and they transmit body heat better than latex. When used properly — more on that in a mo’ — they’re as safe as traditional condoms. Provided you’re using traditional condoms properly, too, that is.

Now, what I’ve just told you is my opinion. If you’re interested in seriously investigating these dealios, you absolutely must arm yourself with as much information as possible and you absolutely must consult with your health care practitioner. I’ll get to the conflicting information is a moment. But you need to talk to your doctor if you’re at all skeptical about my Professor Harold Hill-ish enthusiasm for this product. I mean, you should be talking to your health care practitioner on a regular basis about safer sex anyway, right? Right?

So, yeah. Female condoms are marketed in North America under the brand name Reality™. Made for a woman but strong enough for a man. They’re made of polypropylene, approximately as thick as latex condoms but about three times as wide and a little longer. There’s a flexible rubber ring around the open end — that’ll stay on the outside of your butthole — and there’s another flexible rubber ring, loose, in the bottom of the bag. You squeeze that ring to insert it in your bum. You push the whole contraption inside with your finger or, I dunno, can you think of anything longer than it is thick? Use one of those.

The Long Road to a Vaccine

Mister Joe.My.God posted it BStewart followed up on it and now I'm adding my two cents. To what you ask? Oh just the idea that doctors are giving up hope on finding an HIV vaccine anytime soon.

The Independent’s survey of more than 35 leading Aids scientists in Britain and the United States found that just two were now more optimistic about the prospects for an HIV vaccine than they were a year ago; only four said they were more optimistic now than they were five years ago.

Nearly two thirds believed that an HIV vaccine will not be developed within the next 10 years and some of them said that it may take at least 20 more years of research before a vaccine can be used to protect people either from infection or the onset of Aids.

A substantial minority of the scientists admitted that an HIV vaccine may never be developed, and even those who believe that one could appear within the next 10 years added caveats saying that such a vaccine would be unlikely to work as a truly effective prophylactic against infection by the virus.

In my opinion there has always been a vaccine. Two of em'. They're called condoms and communication. Use them because this fucker isn't going away anytime soon. Dare we ask gay men to start talking about HIV/AIDS again or is the community going to play the "uneasy" and "offensive" card? Because, from what I've seen, we're pretty easy going and not offended toward all the explicitness and sexual activity we carry on with, but the minute there's discussion of a virus, suddenly we're offended. Suddenly, for once, we don't want to talk about sex.

Get over it. Get on with. Talk about it.

ACT UP Art-chives

Since blogging about the ACT UP Media event (a few posts down) I have been getting emails from some activists from the time who have been sending me art and clips and emails.

Most notably, BitterQueen who authors the blog: History Of Gay Bars- the most extensive and comprehensive gay nightlife
and culture archive of New York City I've ever come across has been sending me original posters and fliers from the late 1980's. I strongly recommend jumping over to History of Gay Bars. It's unfathomably detailed and interesting. He deserves a lot of credit.

Since the Pope is in America this weekend I thought I'd share some of the art BitterQueen has been sending me. Such passion then! Despite current HIV/AIDS manageability, I beg the question: Where is and what happened to the outrage?



























































And here is original footage of the ACT UP protest of Cardinal O' Conner and an interview with Larry Kramer: courtesy of After Stonewall:

International PSA's On the Creative-Effective Mark

Translastion: In the world a person dies of AIDS every 1o seconds

MTV France Ad

Funding for Global Aids

Via the New York Times

Congress and the White House are preparing to ramp up spending on programs to combat AIDS and related diseases around the world while removing some of the ideological blinders that have long undermined the effort to slow the spread of the AIDS virus. It will be a welcome strengthening of a foreign aid program that was already one of the shining accomplishments of the Bush administration.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee this week approved a bipartisan compromise, crafted in negotiations between House leaders and the White House, that would authorize a hefty $50 billion over the next five years to support campaigns against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. This represents a huge increase over the $19 billion appropriated in the first five years of the program and a significant increase over the new funding requested by President Bush. The president had originally proposed $30 billion over five years, primarily to fight AIDS, whereas the new bill would authorize perhaps $37 billion to $41 billion to the AIDS struggle.

The administration’s program started small five years ago to meet a perceived emergency as the AIDS epidemic spread out of control. It has already provided drug treatment to almost 1.5 million men, women and children and supportive care to millions of others. The focus for the next five years will be on making some of the initial gains sustainable.

In one farsighted move, money will be used to train some 144,000 new health care workers over the next five years to care for people infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. That is at best a start on easing the severe shortage of health care workers in the developing world, which some estimates peg in the millions. Other donor nations will need to contribute to the training effort as well.

The most troublesome ideological constraint on the program — a requirement that one-third of the funds used for prevention services be spent on abstinence education — has been greatly eased. The bill calls for a balanced prevention program that would promote abstinence until marriage and fidelity thereafter, as well as condoms. It requires countries to report if abstinence and fidelity funding falls below a certain percentage, but it sets no firm percentage that has to be met.

The House is expected to pass the bill in the near future, and the Senate is considering its own version. Although some Republicans are grumbling over the amount of money proposed, it is important that Congress appropriate the full $50 billion if possible. Even that sum would almost certainly not provide universal access to treatment for all people infected with H.I.V., a goal that the major industrialized nations claim to be pursuing.

"Perceived emergency" (?!?!!?!?!?!?!)
So what were the last 27 years? A ride on the fucking carousel?!

Wonderful to hear that there will be more money and more training and, thank goodness, less abstinence only programs but of course republicans are "grumbling" over the amount of money spent, because after all, to them, this is still a "sex disease" only affecting homos and minorities, which in their wealthy white way-of-thinking is preventable for everyone!

To hear that this is a "perceived emergency" and the fact we're still debating over how much "abstinence" should play a part and because this is largely affecting Africa it all reeks of sexphobia, homophobia and general racism. This issue always has! 50 Billion is a great thing but only if used with realistic platforms of sex communication, sex education and prevention techniques.

Wayne Hoffman Guest Blogs on "Staph, Bath and Beyond"

My friend, writer and activist, Wayne Hoffman was able to attend the NYC Community forum on MRSA, HIV and the talk of Bathhouse Closures last night at the LGBT Center. Because I couldn't be there and because he's a pro in this sort of thing I've let him guest blog. Here's what he has to say:
__________________________________________

The Center’s community forum called “Staph, Bath and Beyond” on February 21 left me in a bit of a time warp, since it feels like just yesterday that I was sitting in the center for a community forum on HIV and bathhouse closures. (In reality, that forum was 13 years and about 40 pounds ago.)

The basics: There were about 150 people there, in my rough estimation, mostly (not all) men, mostly (not all) white, mostly (not all) 30s and older.

The trouble with the forum, despite its very catchy name, is that the two subjects it was trying to address are actually mostly separate, and require very different approaches and tones. That was evident last night.

Part I of the forum was about MRSA, the nasty drug-resistant staph infection that’s been making headlines lately – even being (incorrectly) called a new sexually-transmitted epidemic among gay men. Two speakers got up to offer some very useful information about MRSA. Dr. Gary Blick, a physician working in Connecticut, started by asking how many people in the audience had contracted MRSA. Answer: four. He went on to talk about how MRSA is nothing new at all; it’s been around for many years, occasionally showing prevalence in one community or another. About 5 years ago, he noted a surge in MRSA among his (gay male) HIV patients. And indeed, in some places, gay men have had higher prevalence of MRSA than other populations – but we’re not unique in this way. It is also prevalent sometimes among children. Or members of a sports team (the St. Louis Rams, for example). That’s because it’s easily spread by touch – not sex necessarily, but touch. Anyway, some key points:

• “Drug resistant” doesn’t mean “untreatable.” There are plenty of drugs that can kill MRSA. Bactrim, tetracycline, or some more recent drugs.

• ”Communicable” does not mean “sexually transmitted.” MRSA is not an STD – you don’t get it from semen, or from any particular sex act. You can get it from a sneeze, casual physical contact, touching a counter-top, sitting on a gym bench, getting a physical exam. So yes, you could get it from a sexual partner while you’re touching, but that’s also true of a cold or strep throat, and that doesn’t make those STDs.

As if to further prove that point, the second speaker was Dr. Melissa Marx [or Marks? Couldn’t find her name on the promotional material], from the Bureau of Communicable Diseases. She presented some early findings from research that the city’s health department has done on MRSA. (This is early info, but still useful.) Looking at MSM (men who have sex with men) who have MRSA and comparing them to a group of MSM who do not have MRSA, the research saw no increase in MRSA based on the number of sex partners the men had, whether they performed certain sex acts, whether they had sex in commercial sex venues, or whether they used drugs – except for crystal. They did find that that the men with MRSA were more likely to have used crystal, to have waited to shower/wash up after sex, and to have attended private sex parties (as opposed to sex clubs or bathhouses). [These last two items seem related to me, since parties taking place in non-permanent spaces are less likely to have showers and a lot of sinks and towels, and are more likely to have surfaces that multiple people share without wiping them down: benches, beds, slings, etc.] Remember, that doesn’t mean that these things cause MRSA, only that they seem to be a common factor among a number of men who have MRSA.

Both docs provided some simple tips for prevention: Wash your hands. Shower/wash up after sex. Don’t share towels or razors. Wipe down equipment – at a gym or a sex club or a bathhouse – after you use it, preferably with an alcohol wipe. And sit on your towel when you’re using that kind of equipment at the gym or a sex club. In short, use good hygiene. Everywhere.

Part I of the forum was quite calm. Good information, no hysteria, good questions, honest answers. Quite useful.

But the next part of the evening was quite different. You might recall the news last month that the NYC Dept. of Health was talking about closing down all bathhouses and sex venues in the city. This move is being considered allegedly because of an uptick in HIV infections among young MSMs in recent years, especially among men of color. (I’m not saying the uptick is only alleged – that uptick seems real and troubling – I’m saying the city’s motivation is only “alleged” to be connected to this situation. More on that below.)

Now, a lot of us in the audience had been through this before, in the 1980s and again in the 1990s. [Shameless plug: I co-edited a 1996 book about the 1990s crackdown on sex spaces, called Policing Public Sex: So we came with a personal history in this discussion, and there was a lot more emotion and energy in this second part of the forum. [Second shameless plug: I also wrote a 2006 novel about AIDS activism and the battles over bathhouse closures in NYC during the 1990s, called Hard.

Dr. Perry Halkitis, from NYU’s Center for Health Identity, began by presenting a series of points about why the city’s proposal to close sex spaces was counterproductive from an HIV-prevention standpoint. Some of his points: Closing sex spaces means we can’t test different types of interventions to effect change in how people have sex. The city’s current approach to sex spaces makes no distinction between safer sex and risky sex. (More on this below.) We need a new paradigm for HIV prevention that takes desire into account when we talk about risk. We need to talk about people, not just viruses, to make new models for prevention. Sex venues have cultural meaning for many gay men. Closures treat gay men as irresponsible vectors of disease, and focus on the risk-takers exclusively. Most of my novel comes out of very similar ideas, so Halkitis and I are very much on the same page here.

Then the fireworks began. Dr. Monica Sweeney, an assistant commissioner from the city’s Dept of Health, got up and announced quite plainly and clearly that she was there (unannounced, meaning she wasn’t on the posters for the event) to put the media rumors to rest: The DOH has no plans to close commercial sex venues, she said. Period.

Unfortunately, her very clear opening statement turned out to be, well, not quite true. Or, to put it another way, total BS. Upon questioning from the audience, the truth eventually emerged: that basically, the media rumors she was there to dispel were, in fact, completely accurate. The internal DOH memo that the media had reported on, laying out four possible policies under consideration at DOH regarding sex venues – including closing them altogether – was, in truth, exactly that: an internal memo laying out four possible policies the DOH is considering – including closures. So when Sweeney opened by saying that the DOH did not have plans to close commercial sex spaces, what she actually meant – as she later, finally, clarified after repeated questions from the audience – is that the DOH is indeed considering closing commercial sex spaces but they haven’t made that decision final yet. So, technically true, they don’t have any plans right now. But the plan is still being considered, and hasn’t been ruled out.

Now, you might think that the audience, having been through similar forums before regarding the DOH and public sex, had some serious questions for Sweeney. And you’re right. Some people thought the tone of some questioners was “hostile,” but as someone who’s been through these things before, I can say it was, for the most part, quite level-headed and civil. Questions were tough and skeptical, but only a few seemed rude or out of line.

One person pointed out that if the city was truly worried about young men in NYC (MSMs under 30 have seen their HIV infection rates climb 33% in the past 5 years – and those 13-19 have seen a 50% increase – while older men’s rates have continued to decline…and the numbers are particularly bad for young men of color), then it didn’t make any sense to target bathhouses, whose (largely older, whiter) patrons overwhelmingly fall into demographic groups whose HIV infection rates are not rising at all. One guy got up and asked how Sweeney could say they weren’t closing sex spaces when in fact they have recently closed the two main sex clubs in Manhattan (The Studio and El Mirage – although bathhouses and transient sex parties still exist). One person talked about a successful HIV testing program taking place at a bathhouse – a program that has even managed to reach younger men who cruise on the Internet, who come to the baths just for a free HIV test – and noted that without sex spaces, we’d have no way to reach these men at all. A promoter of a poz sex party talked about the value of sero-sorting and “breaking the cycle” of AIDS. Catherine Hanssens from the Center for HIV Law and Policy said that the first thing we must do if we care about prevention is revoke the regulation in the state’s sanitary code that prohibits safer sex (fucking with a condom, oral sex) in public venues. I think her point, that revoking this regulation is a non-negotiable first step for any discussion of HIV prevention in New York, is dead on. Until this regulation is removed, I think it’s futile to talk about any kind of realistic or nuanced prevention efforts in public spaces, because those spaces will always be threatened with closure, regardless of what they do or permit in their establishments. Get rid of that statute, and then we can talk about how to make these spaces safer – whether through more relevant DOH regulations, community-based interventions, organization-based informational campaigns, or campaigns for personal responsibility. (Remember, saying you oppose wholesale closure of all sex spaces – from jack-off clubs to baths to fetish parties -- is NOT the same as saying you want zero interventions or regulations or rules of any kind by anyone.) Exactly how to promote HIV prevention in sex spaces is, in itself, a contentious and interesting debate, but we really can’t get to that point until this ridiculous regulation gets the ax.

Anyway, the discussion got fairly heated here. And while Dr. Barbara Warren from the Center tried to keep things moving, there wasn’t enough time (since we’d spent an hour on a very informative, but, as I said, almost entirely separate discussion of MRSA) to finish properly. We heard briefly from Terry Evans from the Positive Health Project, but never got to hear from GMHC’s Sean Cahill, or the party promoters who were supposed to speak. And Catherine Hanssens only got to make her point in about 30 seconds. Plus, Sweeney left after taking a few questions, so she missed the rest of the discussion that she really needed to hear.

In a somewhat surreal moment, Warren started to wrap up by talking about some of the issues that had been discussed that evening, and she said something about how one person that night had gotten up to say that if he wanted to have unprotected anal sex with a hundred people then that was his right and we should keep the laws off his body. Unfortunately, nobody had said anything remotely of the sort. A cute, nerdy bear from the Radical Homosexual Agenda was sitting behind me and he took the words out of my mouth, shouting, “Who said that?! Nobody said that!” Alas, Warren, too, must have been having a flashback to an earlier forum a decade or two ago. (If, in fact, these words were ever uttered in such a stark fashion. I have my doubts. But that’s another story for another day.)

So what did we get out of all this? Well, first, even though the name wouldn’t have been as cute, this forum should have been split in two: One quite informative educational session on MRSA, and the other more of a community discussion, back and forth, about HIV and public sex, with more voices being heard, and the DOH actually sticking around for the whole thing.

And second: Despite Sweeney’s initial insistence that the media rumors about the DOH’s plans to close sex spaces are untrue, they are, in fact, completely accurate. The DOH has not decided to close sex spaces – they are also considering other options, including looking at other cities’ more successful models of prevention in public spaces, which would, again, require getting rid of our rotten sanitary code regulation. But the DOH has also not decided NOT to implement the closure option, despite the fact that such a move would be counterproductive from a prevention standpoint, according to most of the experts who were there last night. (Opposing closure doesn’t mean that you champion and romanticize these spaces and think they’re perfect and have no connection to health issues; we’re talking about HIV prevention here, and what the best approach to sex spaces is from a prevention standpoint. You can find 50 different models in 50 different cities that all have some measure of prevention success, without mandating wholesale closures.)

Crap, now I really do feel like it’s 1995 all over again. I’m going to go put on a Smashing Pumpkins CD and wait for Melrose Place to come on.

Forgetting

Amfar.org's latest Ad campaign seen all over the city.

NYC Examines Bathhouse Policy, Suggests Closure

An article in Gay City News titled "Examining Bathhouse Policy, NYC Says HIV Infections Up" details NYC's re-examination of bathhouse policy in light of increasing HIV infection rates and suggests either stricter rules and/or complete closure of businesses and parties.

A six page memo was drafted and discusses 4 specific options as to how to enforce stricter policies on bathhouse and sex parties.

1. Continue current policy. Allow bathhouses to operate without inspection in private areas; close (or threaten to close) gay bars and other venues in which sex takes place in public.

2. Continue current policy for bathhouses, but attempt to enforce this policy with sex clubs and "private sex parties." Make greater efforts to close sex clubs and "private se parties" that have fixed locations, regular hours of operation, and charge a fee.

3. Attempt to close all commercial sex venues. Use the Sanitary Code to close all commercial sex venues, including
bathhouses currently in operation.

4. Modify Sanitary Code to permit bathhouses and sex clubs to operate under City regulations designed to promote safe sex. Allow bathhouses to operate under strict safe-sex rules, and allow "private sex parties" to either become permitted bathhouses under these rules or risk closure as in option 2.

The article, released yesterday, has already been making heavy circulation in the gay blogosphere. As it should. Bathhouses and sex parties have always been the menacing scapegoat in increased HIV/STD infection rates but often, in any policy or policing, amounts to nothing more than facade used by state and government officials to prove to the public that they're "doing something."

For more than 10 years now NYC has banned all public sex in bars and clubs and tightened its grip on venues suspected in doing so. But, due to a recent CDC article which informed the public "oops the numbers might have been higher than we all presumed" infection rates haven't changed, yet remain "relatively stable." So is the proof not in the pudding here? Has the policy making and policing for more than 10 years while infection remain the same, year after year, suggest that bathhouses and sex parties may not be to blame?

Maybe it's time we start re-examining how we talk about and teach sex and sex-communication in public. Maybe it's time we say to younger generations, "oh ok, fine! Homosexuality exists and if you happen to be gay or curious here is the absolute safest way to go about it." No, that would be just too darn blasphemous direct. Instead, officials blame, and will continue to blame, places which condone sexual freedom and homosexuality. Some of you might say, "But Eric you're a safe sex activist, wouldn't you agree to looking in every nook and cranny?" To that I'd say yes. But bathhouses have already been revamped under policy. Safe sex and safe sex practice information is found everywhere within these establishments. I'm also living in the reality that in 2008, men know the activity found within bathhouses and those seroconverting there are either seeking out transmission or willfully choosing to not use the tremendous amount of free condoms available. Something they could very well do, and probably more often do, in the privacy of their home or play-spaces.

I have some bathhouse experiences. When living in Los Angeles I ventured out to one or two out of a sense of thrill, boredom or outright horniness and both times I remember receiving, along with my locker key, a number of condoms, lube, and a pamphlet on safe sex and on-site HIV testing and counseling opportunities. As I walked through endless dark hallway after endless dark hallway I took note of the amount of signs discussing safe sex practices and the amount of free condoms everywhere. Now I don't know if I went at the wrong time, or the wrong day, but both times I found minimal attendance and ended up having paid $15 dollars all so I could end up going home and getting off alone.

So city officials want to re-examine bathhouse policy and threaten to shut them down, so be it. Take away another freedom, another right and watch nothing change. Instead, public sex will be pushed to private and attendance on the, easy cum-easy go, easy to be anonymous, websites like Manhunt or Craigslist will heighten. Yet the only difference between bathhouses and websites is that when you enter the anonymous man you've just been chatting with's house, apartment or empty office building, you won't get the free condom, the HIV/STD information, the list of safe sex rules hanging on every wall or the on-site testing. You'll just get yourself and the man, with no information or influence supporting anything to do with safety. After all, even the above article admits, "[T]his is likely to be challenged in court and will cause anger among gay activists and some AIDS service organizations. Many will argue that closing bathhouses will disperse men to other locations where sexual activity may be riskier."

Lifelong Companion

Dear Virus,

I was born on June 24th 1981- the same year you would be discovered. 18 years later, sitting on the living room floor of my suburban New Jersey home, a stream of tears running down my face I would come out to my mother as being gay. My mother would remove herself from her seat, crouch down to my eye level, tears welling up too and in a soft, breaking voice say, "It's going to be OK. Everything is going to be alright." She hugged me and hasn't let go since.

From the day I was born, through the days of my coming out and pushing into adulthood you would match my years, gain speed and mutate. From pre-school to grade school you would ravish an entire community, leaving hundreds of bodies in your wake. From grade school through Junior High you would break community boundaries and affect broader populations. By the time I would reach College you were on your way to sweeping whole nations.

As I received pluses or minuses on my Grade School exams men would be receiving similar symbols forecasting their mortality. As I was beaten and/or standing up to bullies on the playground, a community of men would be doing the same in the streets. Screaming or having their screams be ignored by authorities. "You're not on our team, Eric. You're too short." There will be no education bill that will "encourage or promote homosexual activity." Senator Jesse Helms- October, 1987. At six years old, first grade, at the 8AM bell, 250 bright-eyed youngsters would stand at their desks, place their hands over their hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag. Elsewhere 71,000 people would be diagnosed. 41,000 would already be dead. As I collected baseball cards and Garbage Pail Kids men collected their friends at funerals and as I ate Skittles and learned of the birds and the bees men would be crying and desperately reaching for their AZTs.

You would change, evolve and progress. From not understood to deadly, from death to comprehension, from comprehension to manageability from manageability to normalcy. At 10 a famous black basketball player would be diagnosed and remove your face from one community to all communities. You would be mentioned on Beverly Hills 90210, Pop singers wearing bright fluorescent clothes would sing "let's talk about sex, baby" and Tom Hanks would play a role in a movie called Philadelphia.

By the time I strapped on my first spike-studded bracelet, dyed my hair green and discovered Operation Ivy, The Misfits, Sex Pistols, NoFx and Jack Kerouac you would receive your first blow. They called it a protease inhibitor. In first world nations men began to live and by the time I reached college T Cell levels were stabilizing, but you were still spreading. As I received my diploma and stepped out into the world it was said that in some African nations you would leave 1 in 4 children orphaned.

This June it will be our 27 birthday, Virus, and where are we? I've become a man, I got a job, moved into a city and continue to grow and learn. You've continued to grow as well, doing what you do best, spreading and multiplying, spreading and multiplying. But we have you understood virus, we have you suppressed, we even know how you're spread and you remain one step ahead! Somehow you've even managed to go quiet. When I hear you talked about it's with a roll of the eyes, hushed tones- if even mentioned at all. But I've seen what you can do, the fear you cause, the hate you muster up, the divisions you create, the scars you leave on bodies and the memories you leave on brains. You're once favorite victims, men 10, 15, 25 years older than me are showing a decreasing level of you but you have moved on to us, our generation, your own lifelong companions. You're infection rates are still the same and in some cases, growing. You haven't changed for 10 years.

I've always kept my eye on you. I've wrapped myself in a giant quilt made by your victims, listened to stories, seen the pain in my friend's and mentor's eyes and my veins have woven themselves into a hard, red ribbon- my shield against you, education and history. But with your aimless direction you burrowed yourself in the generation that is the same age as you. We live with you now. You no longer have the ability to kill as easily a you once did and you have many of us believing you're not the same as you used to be. You're aided by a large portion of this nation who refuses to accept the reality of my sexuality and with further determination, refuse to condone it. These people help you and you help them. Yet, even if it was you alone- you'd still do damage.

Dear Virus, mine and many other's, lifelong companion, just know that I will be running alongside you, always. As long as you are there, I will be too. There are others like me who have been running against you before I was able too. Together the group of us have become a WE and WE have existed as long as you have. It is my time now to pick up the pace, to go round for round with you as long as you still stand. To bring those uneducated and unaffected to light. To snap awake those sleepy heads who are unconcerned, uncaring, neglectful and passive. I will be there, as I have always been in the past, since you received a name and I was placed on this planet. Since I can't find you in any school-based text books and teachers as well as many families aren't talking about you, you'll find me on the edge of a broken generational bridge separated by the very mass grave you helped create. One side older, one side younger and in the middle tens of thousands of dead bodies. I'll be there, on that edge, doing what I can and yelling to the other side for stories, history and shared experience until we can fix this gap and stand in the unity we need in order for us to beat you.

Sincerely,

The Younger Generation

PS: Inspired by this must-read article: New HIV Cases Drop but Rise in Young Gays)

Congress' Status on HIV Prevention goes from + to -

Gay City News is reporting that Congress has gone ahead and cut HIV Prevention dollars from this year's budget. A lot of gay groups and AIDS orgs are justifiably looking at this as a slap in the face of prevention techniques for an ongoing domestic crisis. The new budget plan offers a slight increase to the Ryan White fund and a decrease in money for CDC Prevention Programs.

"Among its provisions are just under $2.2 billion for the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act, which funds services for people with AIDS provided by states, cities, and private AIDS groups, and $692 million for the CDC's HIV prevention programs, which got $695 million in the 2007 fiscal year."

Although it's good news that there will be more Ryan White dollars it was disheartening to hear the government taking dollars away from prevention programs. That was until I read this quote:

"We know that we're going to be hearing soon about increased HIV incidence rates," said Sean R. Cahill, managing director of public policy, research, and community health at the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), an AIDS group. "It's unclear if things are getting worse or if they have always been worse, but we do know that things are worse... Given that, we need to be spending more on HIV prevention."

So here's the thought I'm rolling around in my head: (and trust me the last thing I want to do is be complacent about the gov't taking money away from HIV prevention) If things have always been worse or inconsistent or are getting worse than are millions of more dollars going to help?

I believe Safe Sex 101 (wear a condom) is already out there to a tremendous if not commonsense degree and, yes, I'm sure having more money leads to advancements of more effective ways of getting the message across, but this has been going on for over 25 years now, and despite the incredible and well-respected efforts of all prevention programs, something is still being blatantly disregarded.

If the funds were at 800 million and infection rates still increased or stabilized around a high number would we then ask for a billion? And if that didn't work, would we ask for more? I'm afraid millions of dollars isn't the cushion we're relying on it to be.

Money is crucial, there's no doubt. But more crucial than dollars is dialogue. I think it's not only most important, but a huge aid to prevention programs, if the average Joe gay guy begins having the HIV/AIDS conversation again (I'm not saying a lot of you aren't- or ever stopped.) I think at this point it's about internal community dialogue, realistic real-life media portrayal and sex communication regarding the individual and their relationship to sex. The self, self-worth and responsibility must come before the "should I or should I not" passion of sex and the rest will follow. The gay organizations are nothing short of heroes for their time, efforts and passion but we need to stop placing all the responsibility on their shoulders and start looking at ourselves as the solution and dialogue to these rates and statistics. This dialogue will never cost millions of dollars and a budget cut can never be placed on your voice.

UPDATE:
I posted a comment much like the post above over on Bilerico and I got this as a response. It's terrific and schools me about the $$$=resource matter, which I needed to know. The comment is from David Munar of Preventionjustice.org.

"To use an analogue, if HIV were a raging fire you would need more than water guns and pales of sand to put it out. Would you blame the firefighters for being poorly equipped or the municipality for not making sure they have adequate resources to do the job? HIV is our raging fire and our frontline fighters have scarcely any resources to put up a fight, much level figure the right ways to help those at risk.

HIV prevention messages much change and respond to the times, and the strategies you describe are exactly how HIV prevention needs to change. But unfortunately, HIV prevention organizations in the U.S. have LESS FUNDING today than they did TEN YEARS AGO! It's no wonder, then, we are losing the fight to control HIV in the U.S. because we are simply not making it a budgetary or public health priority to do so."

Serosorting, Barebakers and +'s- %'s Oh My!

Have you ever read an article about the rise or fall of HIV infection rates and when you reach the end you're either scared shitless, angry or have no idea what the hell is going on? Yeah, me too. All. the. time.

After reading this incredibly muddy article by 365gay.com entitled: "Study Suggests Shift In Attitude Among Newly Infected Men With HIV Regarding Partners" I again had that, "uhh, what?" feeling. But lately, do to having some incredibly bright and educated people around me I've grown skeptical of the way percentages and statistics are reported and thus my post-article freak-outs have declined.

Here's the dilly:
The article is saying that some poz men are barebacking or men who happen to be barebacking, are positive, but in some cities (like SF) they're beginning to only bareback with other positive men. This is otherwise known as "serosorting."

Serosorting, as defined by wikipedia is "the practice of seeking to only engage in sexual activities with partners who are of the same HIV status as you. In April of 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that the practice of positive-positive serosorting is partially responsible for the decline in new HIV infections in San Francisco.

Serosorting is the reason why it is possible to see a simultaneous increase of barebacking stats with the decrease of HIV infection rates. Men who choose to not use condoms aren't changing their sexual acts but they are changing their sexual partners, and that in itself is a way to avoid spreading HIV. The trend here is that positive men are barebacking each other and not negative men.

Now listen up and listen up real good. I'm not advocating unsafe sex. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that poz on poz men are choosing not to use condoms (there's a TON of other health related issues with that alone.) I'm simply clearing up a hard-to-decipher article before we start stigmatizing the entire positive community as barebacking orgy-fueled deviants. Trust me, as I've reported before, a lot of gay men, even myself at one time, came spring loaded with that defense. And, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes we can talk about how this trend might make barebacking seemingly more acceptable, that it isn't foolproof and that negative men might get caught up in this, but it is none-the-less, an interesting trend and attitude shift to note.

I feel as though this is neither good nor bad news and proves how complicated statistics, percentages and HIV reporting can be.
Case in point- the article states:

Two separate studies presented earlier in the week at the National HIV Prevention Conference, however, found that more than 35 percent of men who have sex with men continue to have unsafe sex.

Everybody freak out, right?

Hold on a second. As a friend of mine pointed out when discussing this article:
How many of those guys are poz guys who have unprotected sex with poz guys only? In terms of HIV prevention, those guys should be counted out of the equation.
How many of those guys are in monogamous longterm neg couples? In terms of HIV prevention, those guys should be counted out of the equation.
How many of those guys were having non-penetrative or oral sex? In terms of HIV prevention, those guys should be counted out of the equation.

The real question is: How many NEGATIVE men fail to use a condom when they have ANAL sex with someone whose status was uncertain or POSITIVE? But nobody ever asks that question.

See that's just the thing. In many of the safe-sex surveys I take or the questions I answer when getting tested, I'm always asked, "Did you use a condom the last time you had sex?" The answer is almost meaningless without a follow-up question: "Were you and your last partner both already poz? Were you and your last partner both neg men in a longterm monogamous relationship? Was the last time you had sex a strictly oral/J.O. encounter?"

Hell yes. Complicated! But important.

I'd like to be clear about something. You can disagree with me all you want but I feel it is tremendously important that we do not look at postive and negative like black and white cards or a pass/fail on a college exam or a yes/no answer. In order to really begin combating this virus we need the ability to acknowledge and comprehend everything it involves. With anger and sympathy being both important factors, it is simple understanding that will eventually be the key factor winning out.

Prevention PSAs: Young Men Stepping It Up

Another young gay man uses his Do-It-Yourself power to do what he feels he can to prevent HIV and vent his feelings. 28 year old stud-monster and porn actor, Francesco D' Macho, (NSFW) created this PSA which he posted to his blog on World Aids Day. Francesco's PSA is raw, hard-hitting and exactly what I feel my demographic needs to see in order to realize HIV never went anywhere and is still a tremendous issue affecting our community. The PSA is not *entirely* safe for work but it is a must see.

For a young gay rights and HIV activist, such as myself, to see another young man doing what he can to join the fight empowers me with a sense of hope and brings a tear to my eye. I am relived to know that although seemingly seldom, we are not alone in this battle and people still DO CARE about the ongoing issue of HIV and the wellness of our gay brothers. I congratulate Francesco for speaking his mind and pat him on the back for his brutal and unapologetic honesty.

World AIDS Day Event

Tomorrow, Saturday December 1st is the annual World AIDS Day. To commemorate this day the wonderful Bowery Poetry Club in NYC is hosting an open mic event for everybody and anybody to share, read, celebrate, yell or vent their feelings and work over the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The event is free although donations are being accepted for Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. The readings will begin at 2PM and go until 4PM.

HIV "Modern Epidemic" In DC

According to this Washington Post article, DC is hit hard with HIV/AIDS.

The article states the old stereotype that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease" can no longer hold. It is truly now everyone's disease. The African-American and African-American female communities are being hit the hardest. 80% of all new infections are found within the African-American community. One should note, however, that African-Americans are also the highest population of people within the DC area.

The first statistics ever amassed on HIV in the District, released today in a sweeping report, reveal "a modern epidemic" remarkable for its size, complexity and reach into all parts of the city.

The numbers most starkly illustrate HIV's impact on the African American community. More than 80 percent of the 3,269 HIV cases identified between 2001 and 2006 were among black men, women and adolescents. Among women who tested positive, a rising percentage of local cases, nine of 10 were African American.

The 120-page report, which includes the city's first AIDS update since 2000, shows how a condition once considered a gay disease has moved into the general population. HIV was spread through heterosexual contact in more than 37 percent of the District's cases detected in that time period, in contrast to the 25 percent of cases attributable to men having sex with men.

"It blows the stereotype out of the water," said Shannon Hader, who became head of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration in October. Increases by sex, age and ward over the past six years underscore her blunt conclusion that "HIV is everybody's disease here."

The new numbers are a statistical snapshot, not an estimate of the prevalence of infection in the District, which is nearly 60 percent black. Hader, an epidemiologist and public health physician who has worked on the disease in this country and internationally, said previous projections remain valid: One in 20 city residents is thought to have HIV and 1 in 50 residents to have AIDS, the advanced manifestation of the virus.