Support NeoGAF

[FoneBone]

The column in question -- personally, I'm extremely disappointed that the Advocate would stoop to publishing something like this, but I guess they'll print anything from someone as "respected" as Sullivan.

http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w.asp?id=17696

Still here, so sorry
“People are in such denial about how serious HIV is. Unfortunately, the best prevention is seeing people die.”
—Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation

By Andrew Sullivan

From The Advocate, July 5, 2005





I’m sorry. It has taken me a long time to say this, but it’s time: I’m sorry.

It’s been almost 12 years since I became infected with HIV, and I haven’t died yet. I haven’t even had the decency to get sick. I am a walking, talking advertisement for why HIV seems not such a big deal to the younger generation—and indeed, many in my own age bracket. I know this is a terrible thing, and I promise in the future to do better. As gay activist Michelangelo Signorile recently told The New York Times, “If everyone in your group is beautiful, taking steroids, barebacking, and HIV-positive, having the virus doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.”

I’m sorry. At the tender age of 41—a year longer than I once thought I would live—I have never felt better. HIV transformed my life, made me a better and braver writer, prompted me to write the first big book pushing marriage rights, got me to take better care of my health, improved my sex life, and deepened my spirituality.

I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better.

Yes, I take testosterone and human growth hormone, and I now weigh 190 pounds. I discovered a couple of abs in my midsection the other day. I’ll try to disguise them. Do they sell burkas online? I’ve even enjoyed sex more since I became positive—more depth, more intimacy, more appreciation of life itself. Sorry.

I look physically and mentally healthier than ever. Sorry again. I know that by just going daily to the gym, walking on the beach, or dancing at the occasional circuit party, I am the cause of more people getting infected with HIV. I have helped persuade them by my very existence that HIV isn’t such a curse, that it can be survived, that it can be treated effectively, that you can live well and long with HIV if you look after yourself and stay alert and informed. I’m sorry. I’m almost as bad as those damn drug ads showing people with HIV triumphing over adversity.

In the future I’ll try to look sicker. Or I’ll stay home more. Promise. I’ll try to get depressed. I won’t work out. I’ll stay off TV. I will never tell anyone that treatments are far less onerous than they used to be (and I went through medication hell for several years in the 1990s). I’ll even repeat the lie that HIV transmission rates are exploding because of people like me, even though the latest solid data show HIV rates to be stabilizing or even declining in many cities. (A decline in infection rates in New York City last year! Sorry again.

I shouldn’t have told you that. It will make you less scared.) If all else fails, I’ll tell people I may have gotten “super-AIDS,” an old, extremely rare, now debunked viral strain that is being successfully treated in one gay man in New York City. Promise.

I’d even be prepared to stop taking my meds if that would help. The trouble is, like many other people with HIV, I did that three years ago. My CD4 count remained virtually unchanged, and only recently have I had to go back on meds. Five pills once a day. No side effects to speak of. I know that others go through far worse, and I don’t mean to minimize their trials. But the bottom line is that HIV is fast becoming another diabetes.

You can see the symptoms. Far fewer gay men are dying of AIDS anymore. Sometimes local gay papers have no AIDS obits for weeks on end. C’mon, pozzies. You can do better than that!

Do you have no sense of social responsibility? Young negative men need to see more of us keeling over in the streets, or they won’t be scared enough to avoid a disease that may, in the very distant future, kill them off. You know, like any number of other diseases might. They may even stop believing that this is a huge, escalating crisis, threatening to wipe out homosexual life on this planet.

What are those happy HIV-positive men thinking of? Die, damn it.

Of course, we could always be thrilled that so many people are living longer and better lives with HIV. We could celebrate our reclaiming of sexuality after years of terror. We could even try new strategies for risk reduction among gay men—strategies that emphasize positive ways to care for our health rather than negative ways to scare the bejeezus out of everyone. But then we’d have no more people to scapegoat and blame, would we?

And Michelangelo Signorile's deservedly harsh response:

http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp143.html

Dear Bareback Andy
Signorile.com
June 23, 2005



Dear Andrew Sullivan:
I just read your latest column, the one in the Advocate in which you – former New Republic editor and current right-wing blogger -- extol the virtues of having HIV and the wonders of being positive. I must say: Very effective. It was enough to make any young gay man declare, “I gotta go get some of that hot poz seed!” Maybe we can get Fox to create a reality show in which we follow people around as they try to get themselves infected – you can be the host! -- and then watch their lives transformed for the better, while all of those nasty, negative people who warn gay men against getting HIV are shut out of the most chic nightclubs, as their steroid-free bodies shrivel-up. We can call the show, “Getting Pozzed!”

In the Advocate column, titled, "Still Here, So Sorry," you write: “I’m sorry…It’s been almost 12 years since I became infected with HIV, and I haven’t died yet. I haven’t even had the decency to get sick. I am a walking, talking advertisement for why HIV seems not such a big deal to the younger generation—and indeed, many in my own age bracket… HIV transformed my life, made me a better and braver writer, prompted me to write the first big book pushing marriage rights, got me to take better care of my health, improved my sex life, and deepened my spirituality. I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better… I’ve even enjoyed sex more since I became positive—more depth, more intimacy, more appreciation of life itself. Sorry. I look physically and mentally healthier than ever. Sorry again….”

You then opine, sarcastically, about how, “Young negative men need to see more of us keeling over in the streets, or they won’t be scared enough to avoid a disease that may, in the very distant future, kill them off,” telling positives to do their duty and, “Die, damn it.”

Now honestly, Andrew, what is the purpose of this column - beyond you masturbating on your testosterone-fueled self? There is nothing wrong with building self-esteem, for yourself, for others who are HIV positive, or for people who are challenged by any adversity in life. But this is an angry rant in which you’re speaking not to positives but to negatives, about whom you have enormous contempt for what seems like one simple reason: They are still negative.

It’s a fairly common and completely understandable reaction among cancer patients, people with diabetes and other life-threatening illnesses as well. Life is unfair, they tell themselves. Why me? But many move beyond the rage, become transformed, help others afflicted with the disease.

You, however, seem to have never come to terms with it. Because HIV is mostly acquired sexually among gay men, and because of that Catholic guilt you’ve talked all about often – and which I know a thing or two about myself – it’s been devastating for you, sending you into all kinds of mental contortions.

If I am wrong, please answer, clearly, the following questions: Should gay men try as hard as they can to stay negative, including always engaging in protected sex? Unless we warn them against getting HIV by using the fear of becoming infected, what else will be the incentive to stay negative? And why are you so angry, anyway, about people using fear as way to warn people to play safe – the way we use fear to warn people that obesity will lead to adult onset diabetes or smoking will lead to lung cancer -- even if it sometimes isn’t as effective as we’d like it to be?

Because we warn people of the downsides of HIV – from complicated drug regimens with terrible side effects (yes, many people don’t respond to the drugs as well as you have) to strains of HIV that simply don’t respond to treatment (and they have been around for years, long before the “super strain” hype, and mark my words, and the words of respected epidemiologists around the world, they will spread), to the fact that people still die from AIDS, however, thankfully, lower the numbers may be right as this moment, as the still very new drugs continue to hold out for many – you feel that the message somehow hurts your self-esteem. It somehow affects your well-being. It somehow makes you feel that you must scream from the rafters of your blog – and the pages of the Advocate – that, no, HIV truly is the best thing to happen to me, honest!

And that tells us, Andrew, that you don’t feel good about having HIV at all. You perhaps even hate yourself for having allowed yourself to become infected via unprotected sex long after it was known how HIV is spread. It’s been difficult for you, someone who found yourself at the center of attention, the golden boy editor of the New Republic , the Gap model, to suddenly be in a group that is certainly not, nor should ever be, considered “hip.” So you would turn that around, and write about how wonderful it all supposedly is. And this is where I believe that you actually want young gay men to seroconvert. You want them to become positive. You want them to join your club, so that it just becomes hipper and hipper and those mean negative people just look more and more marginalized.

If all of that is not true, Andrew, then please state so unequivocally, and sing it from the rafters. Here you have this platform to actually impact people’s decisions on prevention, and what do you do? You spend all of time and space attacking other people’s prevention methods – those nasty lecturing negative people – without offering any of your own, or even your opinion that HIV is not good.

I honestly wouldn’t care what you think at this point – you’ve destroyed your credibility on AIDS and HIV, beginning when you wrote your tragically wrong “End of AIDS” piece in the New York Times magazine in 1996 and ending when it was revealed all over the Internet that you were looking for “bareback” sex with multiple partners, which I wrote all about a few years ago – but I’m concerned about young gay men who read the Advocate. They don’t have a clue who you are or what you are about. They don’t have any idea of the fraud you’ve perpetrated – distorting studies on infection rates, or putting out completely false information -- nor your hypocrisies. Some will say that the editors thus had a responsibility in this regard, and I’m not going to absolve them of that. But I’m writing specifically to you here. These young men are struggling every day to maintain safer sex practices. Some are very successful, while others will look for every rationalization to have unprotected sex. And now you just handed them another one: That their careers, their bodies, their sex lives will be fabulous and that there’s no downside at all, really.

You’re glamorizing illness, for your own selfish reasons, for your own ego. And I think you know that because, oddly, you have not linked to the Advocate column on your web site, where all of the legions of your right-wing, Republican conservative fans can see your recklessness and irresponsibility, and be appalled. It’s funny because you link to everything you write, making sure your fans can get every bit of Andrew Sullivan. But this column, directed squarely at the gay audience in the Advocate – and particularly at all those horrible negative people – seems to have gotten overlooked. Why Andrew? Hey, if you are really so secure and proud of your HIV infection, you might even link to this open letter of mine too, so your conservative Republican fans could see how supposedly ridiculous I’m being. But I bet you won’t.

Sincerely,

Michelangelo

And a little background:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010618&s=kim20010605

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Magic Johnson made HIV cool.

 

[WasabiKing]

Magic Johnson made HIV cool.

No, HIV and Burger King made Magic TRAGIC.

 

[Guzim]

Magic is going to eat Paula Abdul!

 

[Jim Bowie]

Wait, I'm confused. He said that sex was more fulfilling... but he's HIV positive- I thought you were definitely supposed to stop that when you became positive.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Wait, I'm confused. He said that sex was more fulfilling... but he's HIV positive- I thought you were definitely supposed to stop that when you became positive.

no neccesarily. Magic still has sex with his wife Cookie, and apparently she hasn't contracted it. As long as you let the other person know, and they are ok with is (who the fuck would be though? Honestly?) i guess they can continue having sex as long as its protected.

 

[LakeEarth]

Yeah he feels great, HIV is nothing! Wait till he eats some fast food that wasn't cooked right or gets injured, something to get the virus moving, and see what happens.

no neccesarily. Magic still has sex with his wife Cookie, and apparently she hasn't contracted it. As long as you let the other person know, and they are ok with is (who the fuck would be though? Honestly?) i guess they can continue having sex as long as its protected.

With that money he has, he probably has really fancy condoms made out of crazy shit astronauts use to have sex.

 

[Tritroid]

Magic doesn't, and never did, have HIV!! For the umpteenth time!!

Aside from that though, I think what Sullivan wrote is very inspiring for the audience of infected people.

And what he said is absolutely true. HIV is not nearly the same life-threatening disease it was in the late 80s to mid 90s. There are medical breakthroughs happening all the time to combat the virus and slow it down from progressing past the HIV state. That combined with breakthroughs in medication for stronger immune systems and you have a disease that is exactly what Sullivan described as 'another diabetes'.

 

[olimario]

So a potentially life threatening disease made him live his life to the fullest? SHOCK!

 

[Loki]

Magic doesn't, and never did, have HIV!! For the umpteenth time!!

Aside from that though, I think what Sullivan wrote is very inspiring for the audience of infected people.

And what he said is absolutely true. HIV is not nearly the same life-threatening disease it was in the late 80s to mid 90s. There are medical breakthroughs happening all the time to combat the virus and slow it down from progressing past the HIV state. That combined with breakthroughs in medication for stronger immune systems and you have a disease that is exactly what Sullivan described as 'another diabetes'.

Except for the tiny fact that, save (perhaps) for those earning over $500K/year, the costs of treating HIV/AIDS are borne by the taxpayers, and lead to increased health care premiums for everyone, not just HIV-positive people. It's naive to ignore the negative externalities generated by becoming HIV positive. It'd be one thing if people paid their own way, but I don't really feel like paying higher taxes or healthcare premiums just because some idiot decided that HIV/AIDS was "manageable," and consequently decided to increase his rate of high-risk behavior, thereby contracting HIV.


If people contract HIV/AIDS, that's fine-- shit happens, and I don't mind paying for that. But people who actively perpetuate a mentality that minimizes the very real dangers and costs of the disease, thereby lowering society's vigilance against it, are horribly misguided, and should be marginalized, not lauded. The author of the rebuttal above makes a very apt analogy between public awareness campaigns for smoking and obesity and those for HIV/AIDS. Should we tell people not to worry about lung cancer and emphysema despite the fact that it leads to millions of deaths each year and costs the US healthcare system over $100 billion annually? Even ignoring the deaths (since Sullivan's point was that AIDS is "manageable"- i.e., can be lived with), the costs are astronomical, just as they are for HIV/AIDS. Obesity-related illness costs US taxpayers well over $100B annually-- should we ignore that so people can have their supersize meals? Should we permit--nay, champion-- public messages that state that obesity is "manageable" due to advances in angioplasty and heart medication, despite the fact that the public largely bears this expense, not the afflicted? No, these things have actual costs, human and financial. To ignore them is silly.



Nobody should demonize HIV/AIDS sufferers. But people like this Sullivan character should certainly be demonized.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Magic doesn't, and never did, have HIV!! For the umpteenth time!!

What the hell are you smoking? Of course Magic has HIV. What he doesn't have is AIDS.

 

[Hitokage]

Bear in mind that whether or not HIV is a manable problem for America's upper crust, it's a lethal pandemic in Africa that's killing untold millions. People who don't think HIV is scary are leading somewhat, dare I say, insulated lives.

 

[8BALL]

Edit: Yes - AIDS is becoming a pandemic in Africa - but it's no where near as bad as they make it out to be. Many people die of it - many conract the disease when they're raped by people who have it, and etc etc with tragedy and sadness. Well, malaria is bigger than AIDS over there. We only think of AIDS as a tragedy and shit because it's in America too. They use fear to get you to throw money at them. It works. AIDS gets a lot of funding, and there are greta new drugs that can keep you alive - but as faar as a cure? No real hope in sight.

HIV is a gay man's disease.
More specifically, a gay black man's disease.

People will lie and tell you that straight women are the fastest growing segment of hiv/aids cases - but there's a trick.

It's the smallest segment, and therefore a slight increase would be larger than the other groups percentage-wise.
AND, most women who get aids get it through using intravenous drugs and shit, NOT sex.

I hate when people try to tell me that having aids is ok, and not having it makes me somehow less sensitive, or my opinions less valid.

Fuck that. I don't have aids because I don't fuck with random people without a condom, and I don't shoot up with fucking filthy shit.

Being gay is not cool. Being bi-sexual is not cool. Being HIV positive is not cool. No matter how much you hate yourself for it. Live with your disease, sexuality, and afflictions, and don't fucking give me your opinion on that shit. I have my opinion - being straight is normal. You can be gay if you want, I really don't care. Just don't tell me about it, THAT'S what makes me hate you. You can have AIDS, too, but don't tell me how to avoid it, or how devastating it is, because I'm obviously handling the situation a hell of a lot better than you are.

Fucking fag culture.

 

[Tritroid]

Except for the tiny fact that, save (perhaps) for those earning over $500K/year, the costs of treating HIV/AIDS are borne by the taxpayers, and lead to increased health care premiums for everyone, not just HIV-positive people. It's naive to ignore the negative externalities generated by becoming HIV positive. It'd be one thing if people paid their own way, but I don't really feel like paying higher taxes or healthcare premiums just because some idiot decided that HIV/AIDS was "manageable," and consequently decided to increase his rate of high-risk behavior, thereby contracting HIV.

To be frank, I think the negativity that comes with being infected with HIV is already warranted. Sullivan isn't trying to say that there is absolutely nothing negative about being HIV positive, because any idiot with common sense would/should already know the factors involved. And where did he say that he was going to increase high-risk encounters? Simply because he says he's having the best sexlife in years doesn't automatically mean that he's having unprotected sex, in fact logically you could say that he probably is having protected sex judging by that statement considering the fact that not informing a partner that you're HIV infected before engaging in unprotected sex is a crime, literally.

If people contract HIV/AIDS, that's fine-- shit happens, and I don't mind paying for that. But people who actively perpetuate a mentality that minimizes the very real dangers and costs of the disease, thereby lowering society's vigilance against it, are horribly misguided, and should be marginalized, not lauded. The author of the rebuttal above makes a very apt analogy between public awareness campaigns for smoking and obesity and those for HIV/AIDS. Should we tell people not to worry about lung cancer and emphysema despite the fact that it leads to millions of deaths each year and costs the US healthcare system over $100 billion annually? Even ignoring the deaths (since Sullivan's point was that AIDS is "manageable"- i.e., can be lived with), the costs are astronomical, just as they are for HIV/AIDS. Obesity-related illness costs US taxpayers well over $100B annually-- should we ignore that so people can have their supersize meals? Should we permit--nay, champion-- public messages that state that obesity is "manageable" due to advances in angioplasty and heart medication, despite the fact that the public largely bears this expense, not the afflicted? No, these things have actual costs, human and financial. To ignore them is silly.



Nobody should demonize HIV/AIDS sufferers. But people like this Sullivan character should certainly be demonized.

I'm sorry but that is huge insensitivity on your part. Considering that you're probably sitting in an environment where the thought of being HIV infected doesn't enter your mind for a fraction of a second, you have little knowledge of what it would be like to experience that type of a critical point in your life. How easy do you think it would be to be told that you've been infected with HIV and then be forced to be reminded of how you'll die much sooner than others through every single negative ad you see that focuses on 'scare' tactics to keep people from being infected. That imo would be horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. And the difference between HIV/AIDS campaigning and that of smoking/obesity campaigning is that smokers and obese can alter their habbits to change their health and thus go on to live long, normal lives. THIS warrants scare-tactic campaigning. However, HIV/AIDS patients do not have that option, and can do nothing but hope that the drugs prescribed to them actually are beneficial in subsiding the disease from progressing any further. (Unfortunately for many patients, the treatment simply has no effect or the virus becomes immune to it over time.) So I have a hard time understanding why anyone would find fault at Sullivan's attitude, considering for an HIV patient there is very little to be positive about. He isn't suggesting that all ads warning against HIV infection be halted, he isn't suggesting that awareness be slowed because of advancements in treatment, and he isn't avoiding the fact that HIV is still a dangerous illness. He's simply putting a positive light on an otherwise constantly negative state of being.

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

Hey 8Ball, how are you doing today

 

[Tritroid]

Edit: Yes - AIDS is becoming a pandemic in Africa - but it's no where near as bad as they make it out to be. Many people die of it - many conract the disease when they're raped by people who have it, and etc etc with tragedy and sadness. Well, malaria is bigger than AIDS over there. We only think of AIDS as a tragedy and shit because it's in America too. They use fear to get you to throw money at them. It works. AIDS gets a lot of funding, and there are greta new drugs that can keep you alive - but as faar as a cure? No real hope in sight.

HIV is a gay man's disease.
More specifically, a gay black man's disease.

People will lie and tell you that straight women are the fastest growing segment of hiv/aids cases - but there's a trick.

It's the smallest segment, and therefore a slight increase would be larger than the other groups percentage-wise.
AND, most women who get aids get it through using intravenous drugs and shit, NOT sex.

I hate when people try to tell me that having aids is ok, and not having it makes me somehow less sensitive, or my opinions less valid.

Fuck that. I don't have aids because I don't fuck with random people without a condom, and I don't shoot up with fucking filthy shit.

Being gay is not cool. Being bi-sexual is not cool. Being HIV positive is not cool. No matter how much you hate yourself for it. Live with your disease, sexuality, and afflictions, and don't fucking give me your opinion on that shit. I have my opinion - being straight is normal. You can be gay if you want, I really don't care. Just don't tell me about it, THAT'S what makes me hate you. You can have AIDS, too, but don't tell me how to avoid it, or how devastating it is, because I'm obviously handling the situation a hell of a lot better than you are.

Fucking fag culture.

I think you're in a more sad state than any of the people you tried to derogate.

 

[LakeEarth]

Tritroid, good job

Hey 8Ball...

Adios!

 

[distantmantra]

blah blah blah

Wow. Thirty minutes since this post and you're still around.

What a horrible way to state your opinion.

 

[Sapiens]

Edit: Yes - AIDS is becoming a pandemic in Africa - but it's no where near as bad as they make it out to be. Many people die of it - many conract the disease when they're raped by people who have it, and etc etc with tragedy and sadness. Well, malaria is bigger than AIDS over there. We only think of AIDS as a tragedy and shit because it's in America too. They use fear to get you to throw money at them. It works. AIDS gets a lot of funding, and there are greta new drugs that can keep you alive - but as faar as a cure? No real hope in sight.

HIV is a gay man's disease.
More specifically, a gay black man's disease.

People will lie and tell you that straight women are the fastest growing segment of hiv/aids cases - but there's a trick.

It's the smallest segment, and therefore a slight increase would be larger than the other groups percentage-wise.
AND, most women who get aids get it through using intravenous drugs and shit, NOT sex.

I hate when people try to tell me that having aids is ok, and not having it makes me somehow less sensitive, or my opinions less valid.

Fuck that. I don't have aids because I don't fuck with random people without a condom, and I don't shoot up with fucking filthy shit.

Being gay is not cool. Being bi-sexual is not cool. Being HIV positive is not cool. No matter how much you hate yourself for it. Live with your disease, sexuality, and afflictions, and don't fucking give me your opinion on that shit. I have my opinion - being straight is normal. You can be gay if you want, I really don't care. Just don't tell me about it, THAT'S what makes me hate you. You can have AIDS, too, but don't tell me how to avoid it, or how devastating it is, because I'm obviously handling the situation a hell of a lot better than you are.

Fucking fag culture.

Just so you know, Africa's AIDS probelm is not caused by "raping", it is so prevelent due to the rather open social system when it comes to sharing partners. For instance, a man with three wives will often allow his younger brother to have sex with one of his wives. And then if you use your imagination, you can see how the problem can spread.

There is no easy solution. They've tried, but it's a problem that has nothing to do with rape.

 

[Archaix]

Oh I wonder if 8ball could possibly be some asshole that joined specifically to make a post like that.

 

[ronito]

Edit: Yes - AIDS is becoming a pandemic in Africa - but it's no where near as bad as they make it out to be. Many people die of it - many conract the disease when they're raped by people who have it, and etc etc with tragedy and sadness. Well, malaria is bigger than AIDS over there. We only think of AIDS as a tragedy and shit because it's in America too. They use fear to get you to throw money at them. It works. AIDS gets a lot of funding, and there are greta new drugs that can keep you alive - but as faar as a cure? No real hope in sight.

HIV is a gay man's disease.
More specifically, a gay black man's disease.

People will lie and tell you that straight women are the fastest growing segment of hiv/aids cases - but there's a trick.

It's the smallest segment, and therefore a slight increase would be larger than the other groups percentage-wise.
AND, most women who get aids get it through using intravenous drugs and shit, NOT sex.

I hate when people try to tell me that having aids is ok, and not having it makes me somehow less sensitive, or my opinions less valid.

Fuck that. I don't have aids because I don't fuck with random people without a condom, and I don't shoot up with fucking filthy shit.

Being gay is not cool. Being bi-sexual is not cool. Being HIV positive is not cool. No matter how much you hate yourself for it. Live with your disease, sexuality, and afflictions, and don't fucking give me your opinion on that shit. I have my opinion - being straight is normal. You can be gay if you want, I really don't care. Just don't tell me about it, THAT'S what makes me hate you. You can have AIDS, too, but don't tell me how to avoid it, or how devastating it is, because I'm obviously handling the situation a hell of a lot better than you are.

Fucking fag culture.

I forsee a banning mon!

 

[pollo]

AIDS AIDS AIDS!
EVERYONE HAS AIDS!

 

[Hitokage]

"What Would Denzel Do?"

 

[LakeEarth]

"What Would Denzel Do?"

BAN!

 

[Rocket Punch]

Edit: Yes - AIDS is becoming a pandemic in Africa - but it's no where near as bad as they make it out to be. Many people die of it - many conract the disease when they're raped by people who have it, and etc etc with tragedy and sadness. Well, malaria is bigger than AIDS over there. We only think of AIDS as a tragedy and shit because it's in America too. They use fear to get you to throw money at them. It works. AIDS gets a lot of funding, and there are greta new drugs that can keep you alive - but as faar as a cure? No real hope in sight.

HIV is a gay man's disease.
More specifically, a gay black man's disease.

People will lie and tell you that straight women are the fastest growing segment of hiv/aids cases - but there's a trick.

It's the smallest segment, and therefore a slight increase would be larger than the other groups percentage-wise.
AND, most women who get aids get it through using intravenous drugs and shit, NOT sex.

I hate when people try to tell me that having aids is ok, and not having it makes me somehow less sensitive, or my opinions less valid.

Fuck that. I don't have aids because I don't fuck with random people without a condom, and I don't shoot up with fucking filthy shit.

Being gay is not cool. Being bi-sexual is not cool. Being HIV positive is not cool. No matter how much you hate yourself for it. Live with your disease, sexuality, and afflictions, and don't fucking give me your opinion on that shit. I have my opinion - being straight is normal. You can be gay if you want, I really don't care. Just don't tell me about it, THAT'S what makes me hate you. You can have AIDS, too, but don't tell me how to avoid it, or how devastating it is, because I'm obviously handling the situation a hell of a lot better than you are.

Fucking fag culture.

My gaydar was about to explode as I read your post. Do gay people remind you of you? I feel sorry for you I truly do. Btw, bye bye.

 

[Loki]

To be frank, I think the negativity that comes with being infected with HIV is already warranted. Sullivan isn't trying to say that there is absolutely nothing negative about being HIV positive, because any idiot with common sense would/should already know the factors involved.

He minimized the human and financial costs of HIV/AIDS by his overall tone. He goes beyond merely detailing how he has personally overcome HIV (or, more accurately, suppressed it for an extended period of time) and ventures into the realm of making HIV life seem chic and palatable. And in my opinion, once you do that, you've crossed the line.

And where did he say that he was going to increase high-risk encounters?

I never said that he said that he was going to increase his rate of high-risk encounters, only that the tenor of his message can lead to a reduction in vigilance against the disease among people, thereby possibly increasing their rate of high-risk behavior.


If there were public service announcements and advertisements which implicitly painted illicit drug use (heroin, cocaine etc.) as "trendy", or which did not denounce the use of said drugs in the harshest possible terms, using the most personal and vivid examples of its terrible effects, do you not agree that that could possibly lead to more illicit drug use? It's not a certainty by any means, but when the stakes are so high, why even take the chance? Why lend credence to cretins?

Simply because he says he's having the best sexlife in years doesn't automatically mean that he's having unprotected sex, in fact logically you could say that he probably is having protected sex judging by that statement considering the fact that not informing a partner that you're HIV infected before engaging in unprotected sex is a crime, literally.

See above. I wasn't referring to him specifically.

I'm sorry but that is huge insensitivity on your part.

Err, no.

you have little knowledge of what it would be like to experience that type of a critical point in your life. How easy do you think it would be to be told that you've been infected with HIV and then be forced to be reminded of how you'll die much sooner than others through every single negative ad you see that focuses on 'scare' tactics to keep people from being infected. That imo would be horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Point taken. But I feel there is a balance to be struck between fearmongering and a responsible and honest appraisal of the consequences of HIV/AIDS. Perhaps we're currently too much towards one side. Mr. Sullivan, however, is quite cearly too much towards the other extreme.


The very "scare tactics" you lambaste are an important part of the public information campaign regarding HIV/AIDS. What, should the message be similar to Mr. Sullivan's? Should we tell people, "hey, don't worry if you get HIV, because the government will pay for your treatment at a cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers, and higher insurance premiums for everyone else, and you'll live a long, vibrant life?" I don't think that's productive, since not everyone has the resources Mr. Sullivan has, and are thus not assured of a similar outcome. Further, the surest way to get someone's attention is to focus on the impact to them personally; people don't much care about how their actions affect others or the society at large, and any such messages would ultimately be ineffectual. Besides which, even if infected persons live to an average of 60 years of age, we're still talking 10-15 years off their life expectancy-- and that's nothing to sneeze at. What is the current life expectancy for HIV-positive folks, anyway?

And the difference between HIV/AIDS campaigning and that of smoking/obesity campaigning is that smokers and obese can alter their habbits to change their health and thus go on to live long, normal lives. THIS warrants scare-tactic campaigning.

So you're saying that there are no awareness campaigns aimed at teens and other non-smokers which urge them to not start? We both know that there are, and most of them employ the "scare tactics" you seem to despise. This same sort of campaigning should (theoretically-- this is ignoring questions on the effectiveness of "fear tactic" campaigns in general) have a similar effect on those who currently do NOT have HIV, hopefully compelling them to change their behaviors. This is why the content of such campaigns is what it is.

(Unfortunately for many patients, the treatment simply has no effect or the virus becomes immune to it over time.)

So then why should Sullivan's picture of life with the disease be considered accurate? As you note, treatment doesn't work for everybody, yet he sees fit to look at HIV through rose-colored glasses due to his own good fortune, which was undoubtedly aided by his financial standing.

He isn't suggesting that all ads warning against HIV infection be halted, he isn't suggesting that awareness be slowed because of advancements in treatment, and he isn't avoiding the fact that HIV is still a dangerous illness. He's simply putting a positive light on an otherwise constantly negative state of being.

And yet he, like you, demonizes public awareness campaigns and paints them as unproductive "scare tactics." Personally, I just find the tone of the article overall to be improper given the subject matter. As I said earlier, there is a balance to be struck between responsible awareness and demonization; I feel that Sullivan is entirely too far to one side. Entirely.

 

[FoneBone]

Loki -- "this Sullivan character"? Come on, you're disappointing me... ;-)

 

[Willco]

Sounds like someone is hiding in the closet!

 

[Loki]

Loki -- "this Sullivan character"? Come on, you're disappointing me... ;-)

What was I supposed to say? I've never heard of him, personally-- I don't read New Republic, and I certainly don't read The Advocate.

Sounds like someone is hiding in the closet!

See also: "projection"

 

[FoneBone]

What was I supposed to say? I've never heard of him, personally-- I don't read New Republic, and I certainly don't read The Advocate.

*shrug* I just figured that he was sufficiently well known if you follow political writings...

 

[OmniGamer]

Damn, what a prick....i've only seen/heard of him via Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO(twice), and highly disagreed with him most of the time....this is just ridiculous though. I have a few poz friends online whom i've been chatting with for several years(and one of whom i've met a few times)...there is NOTHING glamourous about being poz! I just recently went for a physical and also had an HIV test done, and though my risk was extremely low(I don't even like anal sex), I was still worried cuz I just seem to have an Al Bundy kind of bad luck sometimes...anywho the test came back negative, and it was a HUGE relief for me, and the only think I thought about was how much I would try to STAY negative. I told my friends "I don't ever want to have to bury you(due to hiv/aids)".

It is so wreckless for him to diminish the impact of HIV just because he isn't hacking up a lung. As pointed out, not everyone responds so well to treatment...his retarded, skewed to an extreme "oh I have HIV so I guess I should just go find a nice litle corner to sulk in and die" stance is just, ignorant. The realities of the disease need to be known, especially to younger people who by default have that "i'm young and invincible" state of mind. He really does sound like he's just living it up enjoying his "buff poz bod" and whatever newfound attention it derives as he's doing the circuit party thing...maybe he's in some kind of "oh well i've got it now so i have nothing to worry about, let me just indulge in a wonderful fuck-filled life" mode. And you know, I think Michelangelo Signorile might be on to something, because I myself, am "poz friendly" in that I don't discriminate against poz people...i'll chat and talk and get to know them just as I would anyone...but i've come across quite a few who seem to have contempt for "neg" guys, who only want to associate with other poz guys and then have the gall to have commentary on "anti-poz" neg people. How the hell are you gonna hate on neg people who discriminate against poz people when your poz ass is stiff-arming neg guys? Definitely some self-loathing going on with a lot of them.

 

[Loki]

*shrug* I just figured that he was sufficiently well known if you follow political writings...

I've had little use for politics, and by extension political writing, for the past couple of years. I read enough to be informed, but not to the point where I recognize specific columnists or know their pet positions by heart. Except for the dozen or so nationally syndicated columnists whose columns are regularly featured in my local paper's op-ed section, that is.

 

[SuperPac]

I guess it doesn't matter if millions of people die from it as long as this guy and his friends are living it up. Nevermind that he could re-infect himself with a different strain of the virus should he decide to continue his carefree barebacking lifestyle. And maybe his body won't respond as "well" to that strain.

 

[sans_pants]

Just so you know, Africa's AIDS probelm is not caused by "raping", it is so prevelent due to the rather open social system when it comes to sharing partners. For instance, a man with three wives will often allow his younger brother to have sex with one of his wives. And then if you use your imagination, you can see how the problem can spread.

There is no easy solution. They've tried, but it's a problem that has nothing to do with rape.

actualy i have read stories that there was once a rumor in africa that having sex with a virgin could cure aids so there was a lot of virgin raping going on

could be bullshit, and im not saying "thats why they have aids!!1" but they are not very well informed over there