*Long rant today. Informative if you care to read, otherwise skip down if you aren’t in a ‘heavy reading’ mood*
A small firestorm was set off yesterday in the twitterverse w/the announcement of IML banning the sale of bareback [1]sex w/o condoms videos in the future. (It would probably help if you read the article before continuing) You can also read the fallout from Joe.my.god. I bounced it over to him and he posted it as well.
I thought I’d give it a thorough beating here rather than endless broken comments on twitter and elsewhere. Personally, I have mixed views on the decision. While I support the idea, in theory, I honestly don’t see it having any real affect as is on the problem. Educated informed adults watching a fetish barebacking video does not necessarily equate having unsafe sex in person.
Had this decision been part of a broader effort to unite the neg/poz camps thru acceptance and education, I think it might have had much more of an impact. As is, it 1) is divisive thru the prevailing but misguided belief that blame and finger-pointing is productive, 2) fetish’izes (made up word of the day) the taboo further, and 3) caters to the failed idea that censure has ever worked w/human behavior. Sexuality is tied to our base instincts as human beings and has never been as easy as right from wrong. If it were would the Catholic church still be fighting the ‘abstinence only’ fight? Oh yeah, they’re really winning that battle. /sarcasm
As usual, there are several important distinctions overlooked in the often heated battle over barebacking. From my perspective, the good/bad sides of barebacking, seeing boths sides of the issue (neg and poz), societal re-enforcement of conflicting do’s and don’ts, and finally dispelling the myth(s) often propagated thru irrational fear and ignorance. Otherwise, we end up bickering and solving nothing. Meanwhile, HIV continues to rise in the gay community.
In itself, barebacking is not bad. In closed neg/neg, poz/poz couples it is an entirely normal healthy behavior. [2]There is still a debate over poz/poz barebacking creating super-strains. However, after 2 decades it has failed to materialize as a real threat. But this isn’t really the part people focus on. The very real and dangerous connotation of barebacking is in anonymous, public, and/or online hook-ups where the sero-status of a sex partner is assumed, unknown, or undisclosed. This is the true heart of the debate which routinely seems to get lost in the name-calling, mud-slinging, blame game.
There are always two sides to any story and this is no exception. On the one side, we have neg guys who out of ignorance and/or fear constantly disassociate by pointing fingers and blaming poz guys. This allows them to abdicate any personal responsibility. They further attempt to avoid poz guys by sero-sorting thru a variety of often unsuccessful but comical methods. One very popular method is you can look for tell-tale signs that a guy is poz. In the early days of the epidemic that might have been true but not anymore. Most drugs or cocktails on the market today have few to zero side-effects. Then there is the ‘its the poz guy’s responsibility to disclose their status’ argument. While true in its intent, this approach misses two very important but often completely overlooked realities.
The first reality is ultimately, no one is responsible for your health but you. You can project all you want but if you are neg and wish to remain so, it is your job to educate yourself about HIV transmission [3]no risk, acceptable risk, risky, and very risky and act accordingly. Otherwise, the epitaph on your tombstone might read, “the other guy didn’t divulge he was poz”. Right or wrong, you could still end up dead. Is that the approach you really want to take? As a sexually promiscuous gay man, you should as a rule develop a list of sexual acts you are comfortable with regardless of a persons HIV status. This eliminates not only the fear but also the temptation to engage in risky behavior with a stranger who may not really know their status or flat out lie about it. Yeah, there are some dipshits who lie, but if you take responsibility for your health you negate their lies completely. Guys who follow these common sense rules can have fun, productive, hot, fear-free sex lives.
The second reality is the real culprit in the continuing transmission of HIV are guys who don’t know or refuse to find out their status. [4]For the purpose of this debate, I am leaving out IV drug users who often share dirty needles. If you are sexually active, you should be getting tested once every 3-6 months. It is often free (or very cheap) and there are plenty of places to go for it. In this day and age, there is absolutely no excuse for not knowing your HIV status. And, if you don’t know or have reason to doubt your status, it is your job to act responsibly and have safe sex. Hiding behind fear makes you a coward at best and at worst could potentially land you in jail.
*
On the other side, we have poz guys who equally disassociate by attempting to sero-sort by only playing w/other poz guys. This often stems from being feared, stigmatized, rejected, etc. I would also argue this is probably where the incorrect but prevailing perception that the poz community ‘glamorizes being poz’ comes from. Pick any poz guy you know and ask him how glamorous he thinks being HIV-positive is. I think you’ll find very quickly they do not see it that way. From my own experiences, I find most poz guys are open and honest about their status and act responsibly. Others are less forthcoming but still act responsibly by practicing safe sex w/their sexual partners. Both approaches in my mind are acceptable forms of behavior, one being better than the other respectively. Me personally, I’d prefer to have sex with an openly sero-discordant guy over a guy who had no idea. And yes, there are a few who know and take no responsibility at all and leave it up to their partners to force the issue or not. Then you have the really crazy fucks (commonly referred to as ‘seeders’) who deliberately try to spread it. Don’t even get me started on them. But the latter, while often publicized broadly, makes up the tiniest fraction of the poz community.
*
We are never going to get anywhere by continually polarizing the issue and laying blame. Constructive and positive re-enforcement has consistently demonstrated the ability to change people’s behavior vs negative. Barebacking was here before, during, and after the hardest part of the AIDS epidemic, whether we can all agree or not, it is doubtful it will disappear anytime soon. Instead of fighting over points of view, both neg and poz folks need to reach out to each other. We need to tackle ignorance, fear, and stigma around being poz head on. We need to educate ourselves and others and act/behave responsibly. Until we do something more constructive, nothing will really get done and we’ll see more and more young gay men sero-converting.
*
Jumping back to the article, we have an organization/event known for its rampant hedonism suddenly coming out (pardon the pun) against barebacking by banning the sale of those videos. To me this smacks of a total political attempt to divert responsibility away from the event owner/organizers. But to be fair, maybe thy are legitimately concerned. Maybe it was a gut reaction poorly thought out or merely a first step. As is, I fear it will have virtually no impact on curtailing anything. There has been no mention on policy, education, or prevention efforts to actually curtail barebacking. How exactly does such a conflicting message combat the problem? Simply put, it doesn’t. What it does do is send a symbolic but failed message about the dangers of barebacking. A message that will fall on deaf ears as many will see this as the event taking a side thru blame and censure, furthering the divide between the neg and poz camps.
References
| ↑1 | sex w/o condoms |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | There is still a debate over poz/poz barebacking creating super-strains. However, after 2 decades it has failed to materialize as a real threat. |
| ↑3 | no risk, acceptable risk, risky, and very risky |
| ↑4 | For the purpose of this debate, I am leaving out IV drug users who often share dirty needles. |
I agree with you on many aspects of this decision. I don't think it's going to have much effect in the way of education. I believe that rampant over use of alcohol is much more responsible for irresponsible sexual behavior than the presence of barebacking videos in the vendor mart is. Perhaps IML should stop courting the alcohol company sponsorships and ad revenue if they were truly serious about setting a tone of responsibility for the community.
I think what also needs to be figured out is who was the real force in making the decision. Tony and I were talking conspiracy theories last night about this. Let's say a huge porn studio (Titan, for instance) worked with the other porn studios that also have a "no bareback rule", presented to the producers of IML that they would pull support of the party if these bareback studios were allowed to sell their wares. Who are the producers of IML going to bend to?
This is a total fabrication in Tony and my imaginations – but then again, who knows?
I have to agree with J.P. this decision is really not going to make much of an impact in the way of education. Drugs and alcohol use is more of a contributor to unsafe sex practices than bareback videos.
But what it really comes down to it personal responsibility doesn't it? We are ultimately responsible for our own health.
IML's decision to ban booths, merchandise, or paraphernalia from companies that focus on selling or promoting bareback sex has created an enormous amount of discussion and debate. That's a great thing, and I'm delighted with the community-wide conversation that Chuck Renslow's letter has encouraged. Gay men SHOULD be critically engaged in our collective health and wellness, and that includes being mindful of everything we consume, including porn.
While I appreciate the consciousness raising aspects of the IML ban, I would ask sexually active gay/bi/trans me[n] to keep a few things in mind. First, not all "bareback" sex, or anal intercourse without a condom, is a risk for HIV transmission. For instance, two men may make a mindful, informed decision to have intercourse without a condom and not worry about transmitting or acquiring HIV if they each have the same HIV status. You make this point quite well.
Secondly, most of the behavioral research shows that around 50% of gay men engage in anal intercourse without a condom. We need to step up our efforts around NEW ways to protect ourselves and our partners from HIV, beyond latex. Ongoing promotion of condoms is important, for sure, but we also need new tools, like rectal microbicides, vaccines and oral prevention, to add to the safer sex "buffet."
Many people don't like using condoms all the time, or at all, and demanding they use a condom every time they have intercourse won't make it so.
We also need more research into risk-reduction behaviors like sero-sorting and sero-adaption – where men make decisions about the kinds of sex they will have depending on their own serostatus and that of their partners. We don't know enough about things like "strategic positioning" and "dipping" and the withdrawal method – and it's high time we started finding out how well these strategies work for reducing HIV risk.
Finally, if gay porn was so powerful, most of us would be using condoms all the time. Most porn, after all, involves men using condoms with each other. This is not to minimize the possible effects of bareback porn, but to put it into context.
@Jim ~ I normally delete links to commercial sites but I've made an exception here because it is very relevant and informative.
As to your comments, we seem to agree in many ways. We diverge slightly in execution. You list lofty but excellent goals for sure. That said, I feel our strongest approach is to education and personal responsiblity first and foremost. It is impossible to make a truly 'informed' choice when you are ignorant of transmission methods, along w/the level of risk. One has only to peruse sites like Realjock, craigslist, and the plethora of sex sites to discover how completely naive and/or ignorant many gay men (and not just young ones) are about HIV transmission. A truly informed person can then make effective decisions about their sexual habits, thereby taking responsibilty for themselves.
While education would clearly help with the malice, we can't reach these goals (and others) as long as we allow such a negative atmosphere of blame and fingerpointing to dictate our actions. I've yet to see any real outreach from anyone on bridging the divide.
I am still trying to sort this all out in my head and put an approach to this into perspective…
However my first reaction is this…how frakin ironic that an organization/event that has been founded on a "fetish" and thrives on the interest and involvement of various fetish communities; would come out and "ban", or shake its finger at a fetish/behaviour.
Comes across to me as very "holier than thou".
Where does the line get drawn?
Ban leather gear because animals are slaughtered?
Ban rubber/latex gear to save the rubber trees?
Ban temporary piercing because diabetics need the syringes?
Need I go on?
There is something someone or really anyone can find at fault with any behaviour and start pointing fingers and stand up on their moral soap box….
I agree with comments made above and in this article, don't spread your legs until you know what is going in you.
If someone blind folded you and said, "here eat this!" Would you?
Hey IML – Get off the frakin cross, someone needs the wood!