Taking back the conversation for own health and well-being

Here's how I see it (and I know that I'm apparantly not a "typical" gay man)

I dunno.  As someone who has done plenty of legal and illegal drugs in my day, I never once had unsafe sex as a result.   I suppose - at least this is what I've gleaned from this diary - that that makes me an anomaly.  

I think it's high time "we" (although I generally find that the "we" other gay people speak of rarely, if ever, encompasses me) stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for our own bodies.

I was born in 1974, so by the time I came of age sexually AIDS was no big secret.  Most of my peers have lived with the specter of AIDS our entire lives, so when I see rates of infection (and not just HIV, but other STDs) as well, going up, my bleeding-heart liberal soul WANTS to acknowledge lack of information and understanding, but .... for God's sake, it shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone out there that sex is STILL dangerous and that we need to protect ourselves or face the consequences.

I'm nowhere near innocent myself, but I'm also not an idiot, or someone with my head in the sand.  

---

by: Kringas @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:07:33 AM CDT

Are self-described "Conservative" and Republican gays our role models?

Why is it that so often, the gays who self-label themselves "Conservative" or "Republican" and rail about the promiscuity and hedonism within the "gay lifestyle", the first to be exposed as utter hypocrites?: http://web.archive.org/web/200...

It only weakens our cause tremendously when the lead spokesperson for gay marriage has a history of unspeakable lurid and dangerous sexual behavior. Sometimes I wonder if the right-wing media happily appointed these freaks to represent us so their mere presence would undermine our image. Why is it that so many "liberal, elitist, traitorous fifth column" gays are busy raising healthy kids in stable homes while gay "Conservatives" obsess on a morality they seem to posses the least?

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 17:50:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

420?

"Community leaders, activists and non-profit groups should take back the conversation and forget the Religious Right; they will say what they usually say and all the while, we'll be moving forward."

I'm almost convinced you're high when writing these.

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:13:40 AM CDT

I'm afraid of catching something because I care about not dying

Our community should loudly and soundly condemn the glorification of barebacking, but should do it in a way that promotes, not demeans, our self-esteem and health. We shouldn't put on a condom because our sex is dangerous or because we're afraid of catching something. Rather, we should put on a condom because we care about ourselves and we care about our sexual partners. See the difference?

See, putting on a condom (or making my partner wear a condom) because I don't want to catch a disease doesn't demean me in any way.  Anyone who finds it demeaning to frame it that way needs a shrink.  

And no, I don't see the difference.  

---

by: Kringas @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:28:05 AM CDT

as i see it, it's a choice between two not-so-great choices

i think that conversing about safe sex is one of the most important issues around for anyone, but for gay men especially.  you stressed it in your comments, but it should become a central tenet of the discussion, a disclaimer of sorts: ALL men like sex.  a lot.  heteros and homos alike, and multiply that times two with there's two men with raging hormones and no chance of accidental pregnancy.  it's common sense.  

however, we have the religious reich to deal with.  the religious reich will always find our sexual habits simulteneously disgusting, sinful, fascinating, and exciting.  they find ways to twist homosexuality into a perversion on their own, and point to disease as god's punishment for that perversion (conveniently ignoring the almost non-existant rate of STDs among lesbians).  but when they can use our own words to point to as proof that we are aware of our supposed-misdoings, it strengthens them, causes infighting among our community, and shuts down the conversation.  remember this?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ld...

that's the problem.  dicuss, and they pounce, and we suffer.  don't discuss, and we suffer.  

first off, i'd prefer to discuss the dangerous habits of the religious reich and bring that into the public sphere.  why do we always have to be on the defense when it comes to these fights they pick with us?  the true danger to society lies in their theocratic and mindless belief system, the fact that their form of "sex education" for kids involves being molested by their leaders and ensuring that they're at high risk for pregnancy and disease.  

secondly, the glories of sex within a truly committed relationship--for anyone--should be somewhere in the mix.  there's so much baggage and self-loathing that needs to be healed among GLBTs.  it's not their fault that society has shit on them.  accompanying any discussion of sex should be a discussion of worth.  

as far as getting that message out is concerned, i have no idea.  public service announcements?  

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 12:09:11 PM CDT

I see this post

but I will read it more in depth when I get home.

But I think this is a very, very important topic. Esp. matt's comment.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 12:18:32 PM CDT

Substance abuse? Promiscuity? Unsafe sex?

Wow.  What's your next "secret"?  That gay men have elbows?

A) None of this stuff is "secret."  

B) What on earth leads you to believe that these problems are endemic to the gay community?  I could introduce you to lots of straight people, both men and women, who indulge in all three of these.  To the degree they are problems (and I remain to be convinced that "promiscuity" is one, except in the context of a committed relationship), they are society's problems, not just the gay community's.  Suggesting that we might be able to rid our community of these behaviors while a large segment of American society continues to indulge in them and display them in movies, TV shows, pop music, sports, etc., strikes me as fairly obtuse.  

Gay people don't exist in a vacuum, and the gay community is not hermetically sealed.  We--all of us--are subject to influences and pressures from outside the gay community that are in many cases much stronger than any influences from within.  

You really need to rethink the thesis, here.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 13:18:53 PM CDT

Should have written

*specific to, not endemic to.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:01:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank You!

The majority of gay people caught up in this "lifestyle" doesn't represent gay people as a whole.

For the first couple of years of being "out", I done all that stuff - the clubs, drugs, being a little promiscuous/one BF after the other, etc.

But for the past few years, I've been living a more domesticated life - not in a relationship, but not seeking in any form or fashion either.  

Most of us grow up and out of that so-called "gay lifestyle" (which is really no different than young straight people going wild once they leave the nest).  And it's unfortunate for those who refuse to leave the club/drug/sex hookup scene - but that's their business.  For me, personally, it's more fulfilling to blow my money on collecting music, rather than overpriced drinks and all that stuff! LOL

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:16:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think of promiscuity as a "problem"?

Not that I am pleading guilty to "promiscuity" mind you but why do you think it's a "problem."

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:19:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh, you remain to be convinced

my bad, then we agree...

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 15:20:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This all seems vaguely familiar ...

It all began in April, when Sullivan published a mocking account of his recent visit to San Francisco. "The streets were dotted with the usual hairy-backed homos," he had snarked. "I saw one hirsute fellow dressed from head to toe in flamingo motifs." Wandering into a gay bar, he recoiled: "Rarely have I seen such a scary crowd. Gay life in the rest of the U.S. is increasingly suburban, mainstream, assimilable. Here in the belly of the beast, Village People look-alikes predominate, and sex is still central to the culture. . . . I'd go nuts if I had to live here full time."

This was classic Sullivan, right down to the contempt for what he calls the "libidinal pathology" of gay sexual culture. He considers gay marriage the only healthy alternative to "a life of meaningless promiscuity followed by eternal damnation." He has hectored gay men for their obsession with "manic muscle factories," and written at length about the need for "responsibility" in the age of AIDS. But thanks to the outing squad, we now know that this gay moralist is guilty of the same sins he disses others for committing.

Using the screen name RawMuscleGlutes, Sullivan posted on a site for bare backers (the heroic term for gay men who have sex without condoms). He was seeking partners for unsafe anal and oral intercourse. Sullivan revealed that he was HIV-positive and stated his preference for men who are "poz," but he also indicated an interest in "bi scenes," groups, parties, orgies, and "gang bangs." This hardly fit the gay ideal Sullivan had created in his book Virtually Normal. In fact, RawMuscleGlutes is just the sort of "pathological" creature who raises Sullivan's wrath.

http://www.villagevoice.com/20...

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 17:57:17 PM CDT

If you recall RawMuscleGlutes' personal ad,

one of the comments was, "There is no such thing as too hairy."  So why is he now carping about "hairy-backed homos"?

You may also recall that Sullivan announced in the New York Times Magazine back in the mid-90s that the AIDS crisis was over.  There was no further need for anyone to be concerned.  Straight people need not feel ashamed or guilty any more.  And this was just after he came out as HIV+ and was summarily fired by the New Republic.  

The man is certifiably nuts--a committed Catholic who keeps saying that his church is not homophobic (except for the occasional pope) and that gay people who don't agree with his take on the world are immoral.  But he discovered the key to easy mainstream success for a gay writer: Trash your own community.  The Times, the Atlantic and any number of other MSM outlets never fail to go for that.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 18:50:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]