Young Gay Men Spreading AIDS

[Guest miketx]

Well appears that the link I have above to a gangbang party has been changed. It used to state that the bottom was negative as of 5/26 & that the host had already converted 2 other guys at such parties. It also stated that the two newly poz guys would be barebacking "Steve".

[Boston Guy]

This was just reported today, May 31st. Having lived through the last 20 years -- something that I questioned would happen on more than one occasion when it seemed like everyone was dying -- I find this to be just really, really sad. And it's nuts, too, because it's mostly from barebacking and today, unlike 20 years ago, we all know what causes AIDS and how to stay healthy. The accompanying full story reported that of the 750,000 Americans who have been diagnosed with AIDS, 450,000 are dead. Way too many names on the quilt.

 

 

CDC: Young Gay Men Spreading AIDS

 

ATLANTA (AP) - Gay men too young to remember the earliest reports of AIDS are now spreading the disease at alarming rates that remind health officials of the explosive first years of the epidemic. A government survey released today shows 4.4 percent of gay and bisexual men ages 23 to 29 are newly infected each year with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The survey, timed to mark the 20th anniversary of the discovery of AIDS, is the government's most sweeping evidence yet of a resurgence in the disease among young gay men. It suggests even more staggering infection rates for blacks in that group: 14.7 percent - one in seven - become HIV-positive each year.

[+ deej]

This really is sad.

 

Like you, I lived through the emergence of "that gay disesase" and a time when nobody knew much about it. Today, I'd no more have unsafe sex than play Russian Roulette (same thing, really). But guys are.

 

I guess that saying is true: Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

[Bilbo]

And repeat it at a time when our gay institutions which were formed to combat AIDS have nearly worn themselves out on that subject and dearly need to be allowed to address other subjects instead, like breast cancer or aging glbts.

[Guest blankman]

I just had a very nice experience with a great escort but one thing troubled me. He was really polite in every respect, always asking if things were OK. I was very surprised when, at a certain critical juncture that everyone here is familiar with, he ASKED me if it was OK if he put a condom on before he topped me. This didn't make any sense because the first thing he did after we got in bed was to put two condoms on the bedside table since it was clear what was gonna happen, and I liked that, very matter-of-fact and straightforward.

 

In fact at first I didn't even understand his question, I thought he was asking me if I would put a condom on and so I thought "did he misunderstand who is going to do what right now"?

 

Anyway, I sure hope that if anyone ever says, "no" to him he insists. He's new to escorting but this politeness (?) thing can go too far!

[+ deej]

Yes, that's a question that shouldn't be asked. It should be a given.

 

One of the most endearing escort ads I've ever called (several years ago) started by crowing about the guy's bottoming skills. But the part that really caught my was "if you can get a condom on it, I can take it".

 

No nonsense, no mystery. If it's going in, it'll have a condom on it. (Sadly, the guy was gorgeous and capable, but a dud. Very cold and mechanical.)

[+ deej]

>And repeat it at a time

>when our gay institutions which

>were formed to combat AIDS

>have nearly worn themselves out

>on that subject and dearly

>need to be allowed to

>address other subjects instead, like

>breast cancer or aging glbts.

 

Sadly, if the numbers keep going up there soon won't be any aging glbts. <sigh>

 

The American Cancer Society *still*, after all these years, wages war agains smoking and tries to educate young people about cancer. Why? Because there are new young people every year. It has to be repeated over and over again.

 

Same with the safe sex message. It can *never* stop.

 

I've been chatting about this with a pal who is a porn star & has given much of himself to HIV charity events over the years. This story hit him very hard and he wonders if his efforts have been for naught. I keep telling him that if he helped prevent JUST ONE HIV infection, he did good work.

[Guest miketx]

I remember when the xtremesex site made the news some years ago (since closed): http://rampages.onramp.net/~tmike/xtremesex/xtreme.html After reading one of the conversion stories on the site, I was stunned that someone would want to get this disease ON PURPOSE.

 

Yesterday, I stumbled onto this site: http://www.geocities.com/jockboi72/gangbang.html

 

I just don't get it.

[guyinsf]

Did anyone else read the book by Gabriel Rotello that came out about five years ago titled "Sexual Ecology"? In it he predicts that this surge of infections would take place in the gay male population. (I know he's not the only one who made such forecasts, but his book makes a very cogent argument for this. And, yes, his book is largely about HIV in the gay male community. As I recall, he doesn't attempt to analyze the global epidemic thoroughly.)

 

I hope I don't do his thesis a disservice by giving this very brief summary, but the gist of his argument was this: Safe sex education really doesn't work, at least not to the great extent that many would like to believe. The real reason we saw a decrease in infections as the 90's progressed was that HIV had already infected most of the gay men of a certain age cohort that were likely to be infected. Basically his argument is that many gay men were and are sexually conservative in a lot of ways (not into anal sex, having very few partners, etc) so they are at less risk, statistically speaking. Then he argues that as a new generation matures and becomes sexually active, there will be those in that age cohort who are more likely to become infected than others. As HIV begins to infect men in that age cohort, they spread it to others of similar age, and then the spread keeps escalating until HIV infection reaches a similar penetration as the previous generation.

 

Again, I'm sorry for any errors or omissions I may have made, and others should feel free to correct me if my memory is faulty. But I think the above pretty fairly reflects the main gist of his argument. Yes, it sounds pretty fatalistic and hopeless, I know. I do think he offers some sound arguments, however, and I also recall that he puts forth some of his ideas as to what might help. I know that I personally feel that more discussion needs to happen about how and why unprotected anal sex, the main mode of transmission among gay men, is so exciting and appealing. Instead of trying to shame or moralize or ostracize it out of existence, AIDS organizations should be facilitating broader conversations. "Just say no" doesn't work (as a sole message) when it comes to teen pregnancy or drug abuse and it doesn't work with safer sex, either.

 

The San Francisco AIDS foundation previously used the tag, "Use a Condom Every Time." I remember wondering if this meant that, until the day I died (which, who knows, could be 50 years from now), I would always have to use a rubber when having sex? This seems rather burdensome. Even if I found a monogamous partner, I should still use a condom every time? Upon further reflection, I think this kind of marketing reflects internalized homophobia. How many heterosexuals would be able to do this? And would anyone even attempt to target the public at large (i.e. straight people) with such a campaign to use a condom every time? When women get pregnant by having sex, especially single women, does everyone gasp and chastise her (and the man who impregnated her) for having unprotected sex? In the late 80's in San Francisco, I worked with two young single women who got pregnant by their boyfriends, and no one raised this issue.

 

Don't misinterpret my statements above. I agree that encouraging condom use is important. I think it is important for gay men to assess their risks and use condoms appropriately. I'm not anti-condom, I'm just anti-prohibition because I don't think it's particularly effective.

 

Okay, off my soapbox -- for now anyway.

[Guest ChicagoCorey]

You raise a lot of really great and interesting issues. As someone who has come of "gay age" in a time where I still haven't had any friends die of AIDS (though I have quite a few HIV+ acquaintances), I've also had the luxury to debate and discuss internalized homophobia, the politics of barebacking, and have explored these issues inside and out -- in dialogues, but not in practice.

 

Unfortunately, that's in theory, baby. And theory works well on argumentative message boards and in a presidential debate. But in practice, HIV still can kill you. And no matter how you feel about the ways and means of preaching safe sex (and trust me, I have many of the same issues you do), having unsafe sex is still really fucking stupid.

 

Unfortunately too many guys out there aren't as educated on the facts. And they hear what they want to hear. So maybe they ignore the "safe sex" mantra. But I'd much rather keep preaching it than have them overhear the "maybe there's another way..." discussion and misinterpret it.

 

This still gets me all worked up so I'm not able to be as clear as I want. I know, from the guys I've met, that there are too many cool guys that I never got the opportunity to meet because of AIDS. And, like I said, I haven't lost any friends to it; I want to keep it that way.

 

-------

chicagocorey@yahoo.com

new site and pictures

http://www.geocities.com/chicagocorey