joe@emacs.UUCP (Joe Chapman) (10/03/85)
<> Recent reading: Harper's for October has a panel discussion on AIDS that is one of the most coherent and intelligent presentations on the subject I can remember seeing in the media over the past several months. Some quotes: Gary McDonald (AIDS Action Council): ``Look, I think the moment may have arrived to desexualize this disease. AIDS is not a ``gay disease,'' despite its epidemiology. Yet we homosexualize it, and by doing so end up posing the wrong questions. There is no evidence to support the notion that gay men in general are immunocompromised because they engage in anal intercourse, despite the fact that semen itself may be immuno- suppresive in some circumstances. And gay men have been doing this for centuries with no dire consequences.'' Mervyn Silverman (a consultant) (no joke): ``... And there are certainly erotic and exciting sexual activities that do not entail an exchange of body fluids. Use your imagination.'' Ann Giudici Fettner (New York Native): ``Use your imagination? What kind of educational message is that?'' Mathew Shebar (Gay Men's Health Crisis): ``Margaret Heckler ... I call her the secretary of health and heterosexual services.'' Along (alas) lines more typical of the media of the Republic, the magazine New York for the 7th inst. purports to bear within its pages ``The Last Word on Avoiding AIDS''. Some good material---a little better than the Enquirer's coverage---particularly with regard to catching the disease through casual contact. On the other hand, as soon as New York enters the bedroom things go a little haywire. There are a few choice nuggets: a sidebar labelled THE NEW SEXUAL ETIQUETTE advises: ``If you're a single woman, remember---no casual sex ever again,'' says one expert. ``Know your partner. Know whether he ever had a homosexual experience or used injected drugs in the past eight years.'' One unworthy identified only as ``Kaplan of the Human Sexuality Program at the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center'' [ I assume he wears a trenchcoat and introduces himself as ``Kaplan of the Center'' ] refers to ``these high-risk people, these Typhoid Marys''. It's possible he meant this as a dish. If he did, this is the only dish in the article. The magazine is hardly worth dashing out and buying for the article in question. I myself bought it to get the show times for ``Vampire Lesbians of Sodom'', a play which sounds oddly like the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes remade for the Village. A report of which, subject to its intrinsic merit, the availability of tickets, and the fickle whims of my fair traveling companion, may be forthcoming... -- -- Joe Chapman joe@cca-unix decvax!cca!emacs!joe "I'd be a narcissist, but I'm not my type"
blueskye@sun.uucp (Tim Ryan) (10/04/85)
Recent posting from: > -- Joe Chapman joe@cca-unix decvax!cca!emacs!joe > Recent reading: Harper's for October has a panel discussion on AIDS that > is one of the most coherent and intelligent presentations on the subject > I can remember seeing in the media over the past several months. Thanks for bringing up the _Harper's_ article. I've read it, and excerpted it for some of the locals here at Sun. It really *is* one of the very best articles on AIDS that I have read. I would also recommend to all readers of motss and your friends two other magazines (both October issues): _The Atlantic_, and _The New Republic_. The _Atlantic_ article is labelled as "How San Francisco Coped [sic] with AIDS;" the _New Republic_ article is titled "AFRAIDS." Both are very sane, intelligent, informed articles on the subject. I can't say strongly enough that every person of whatever sexual preference who has had more that one sexual partner since 1981 should read these articles (all three). The _Harper's_ article is especially good, in that it describes in great detail the history of the disease, what the "clinical" meaning of the term is, and describes how the retrovirus LAV/HTLV-II works. It also discusses some issues of burning concern to all oppressed people--like mass quarantine and public policy. The _ATlantic_ article spends much of its time discussing how AIDS has affected San Francisco, and how it has shaped recent public policy in SFO. But it also discusses how it affects the lives of the people who it touches. There have also been recent editorial articles on AIDS in the British news weekly _The Economist_. I don't remember the issue dates, but I'm sure that there will be more in the future. _The Economist's_ articles give a uniquee will be more in the future. _The Economist's_ articles give a unique, European perspective, that is quite intelligent. I think they have the benefit of distance from the tragedy to help them. In any case, it appears that the "serious" press has started to get serious now. It burns me up,though, that it took school children and Rock Hudson to get their attention. - tim ryan {...,ucbvax,decwrl,&c}!sun!blueskye