aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) (10/14/90)
After reading some of the things on this board, I think it's time I expressed some of my own views, not in response to some particular message, but to the messages here in general. I've given a LOT of thought to the subject of AIDS, as a lot of my friends are HIV+, and I am involved in a "mixed marriage" myself, where I am HIV- and my lover is HIV+. This prompted me to give some long, serious thought as to how I conduct my life. I see a lot of discussions on this forum that I feel are quite off base in terms of their basic approach. It is quite clear as well that many have been posted by people that don't have experience with AIDS in everyday life. My opinions are by no means authoritative, but I think that their pragmatism is shared by a lot of people in the gay community that have had AIDS affect their lives directly or indirectly. First of all, there is a lot of flap about condoms. Are they safe enough? What if they break? All good questions. What you have to keep in mind is that condoms, ON THEIR OWN, are an absolutely terrible way to prevent AIDS. However, they are part of a strategy that can control the risk. I have what I call my "triple protection plan" to reduce the chances of my acquiring AIDS. It is: 1) Use condoms for sex. I don't use them for oral sex, as studies have shown that this is an unlikely mode of transmission. But for all other types of penetrative sex, they are a must. 2) Use the right lubricant, always. This means something water based, with Nonoxynol-9. This vastly reduces chances of breakage. Nonoxynol-9 also seems to reduce the risk by deactivating the virus. 3) Have the "active partner" (God, what a horrible euphamism) pull out before ejaculation. Then, even if there is breakage, the chance of transmission is reduced substantially. Secondly, there is this matter of only having sex with HIV- persons. I think this is hooey. If you make this requirement, people will lie to you. Simple as that. Unless you take the time to get to know someone REALLY well, you can never really be sure. A simple rule: If you wouldn't do something with an HIV+ person, don't do it with anyone. (Unless you are married, I guess.. but people have been known to sneak around on the side!) Assuming that everyone is HIV+ actually makes your life much simpler with less worry. In the gay community, HIV is so widespread that any other approach is foolish - among hets, it's just a nice, sensible idea. There are also people out there that are terrified of having any kind of sex with anyone. Well, it's safe, but I consider that somewhat extreme. Everything in life involves risk, and if you avoid all risk, you aren't living. What are you really afraid of? Dying? Being labelled as a leper because you have AIDS? Or dealing with your own sexuality? There is so much fun to be had with truly safe sex, ranging from simple jerk-offs to elaborate fantasy games that, by my reckoning, everyone should be doing it. There is no reason that sex HAS to expose you to any risk at all. The main stumbling block to this are people's archaic notions that sex has to involve penetration, and that anything else doesn't make the grade. Finally, there is this question of who is "responsible" for AIDS transmission. I don't think this is much of a question at all. Of course, it is unethical to have unsafe sex with an HIV- person if you are HIV+. However, if you are HIV- and have casual sex without protection, you are either consenting to be infected or are so outrageously stupid that you probably have bigger problems than AIDS to deal with. This is harsh, I know, but there is nothing to be gained by assigning "blame" to any party - AIDS can be prevented, and preventing your own infection is nobody's responsibility but your own! Of course, this principle is not completely extensible. I don't extend it to people to that were infected before people were really aware of the magnitude of the epidemic. But let's consider a touchier case - a couple that has been married for 25 years, the husband picks up a prostitute, gets infected, and transmits it to the wife. Who is at fault? The husband wouldn't exactly say "OK dear, we're using condoms from now on." His wife would kind of wonder at that! I guess this is a case where you could blame the husband, but there is actually a much larger issue at hand than where to place the blame. The problem here lies in people's approach to sex on a very basic level. In this husband and wife scenario, there is some pretty blatant hypocrisy going on. They are attempting to subscribe to a monogamous model of sexuality that is very clearly dysfunctional for one reason or another. This marriage has been placed into an impossible situation - clearly the husband can't, or is not willing to, be monogamous, while he must maintain the farce of fidelity. In the past, this schizophrenia, which has existed for decades in American life, could be conveniently ignored, or at least propped up with the famous toilet-seat defense. Now, AIDS is not only impossible to get from a toilet seat, it is fatal. This requires some restructuring of our models of relationships. Some people are quite content in eternal, monogamous relationships. Some are NOT, and there is nothing wrong with that. Forcing the shoe of monogamy onto someone whose feet are too big is only going to cause sore feet. If AIDS is going to be controlled, we have to understand that, for some people, monogamy would lead to a nervous breakdown, and that non monogamy is just as valid an option for them. Getting back to the husband/wife scenario, what could have prevented them from both becoming infected? Here are some ideas. 1) The husband could have made a conscious choice to have safe sex whilst sneaking around. This is not the best solution, but is probably the most realistic. The only way he could make this decision would be to accept his own infidelity, think hard about his best option, and do it with a clear mind. With the stress of not fulfilling the monogamous model of marriage and confusion over his sexual identity, (monogamous/nonmonogamous), condoms were probably the last thing on his mind. Sure, it's his own "fault", but Mr. Husband is a human being, and humans can get confused and do stupid things when they are compelled to do one thing while being told to do another. As I said, let's focus on prevention rather than blame. 2) Mr. Husband could have sat down with his wife beforehand, and said "Honey, I love you but monogamy is impossible for me. Please try to understand. Here is a box of condoms that we should use, as I am going to be at some risk for AIDS and I don't want to infect you." This might end in divorce, but I'd take divorce over AIDS any day. 3) Although this is no longer an option for our hypothetical couple, this is a matter that should have been discussed openly and honestly before the marriage ever occured. Guidelines should have been set regarding fidelity, safety and such, recognizing that regardless of one's romantic ideals, nobody is perfect. Clearly, these are not things that people are used to doing. But, if AIDS is going to be contained, society as a whole MUST sort out where it's at with respect to how relationships work. Perfect monogamy is a nice ideal, but it just isn't happening, and so long as people have sex, we have to consider what to do about AIDS. So, in short: AIDS is serious business, but you can still have fun and keep the risk at an acceptable level. Creativity in sex is helpful in keeping it fun without increasing the risk. You should assume that everyone is HIV+ for your own safety, and not discriminate against those that actually are. Your health is nobody's responsibility but your own. Finally, thinking about prevention is infinitely more important than assigning blame, and preventing the spread of AIDS requires rethinking some of our most basic assumptions about sex, love, marriage and monogamy.
jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) (10/16/90)
In <40117@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) writes: >I have what I call my "triple protection plan" to reduce the chances of my >acquiring AIDS. It is: ... >3) Have the "active partner" (God, what a horrible euphamism) pull out >before ejaculation. Then, even if there is breakage, the chance of >transmission is reduced substantially. I would hardly recommend this as a way to prevent HIV infection, just as I would hardly recommend it as a method of birth control, and for the same reasons. If you can do it, great, but I wouldn't (I know you weren't recommending this) rely on just it. >A simple rule: If you wouldn't do something >with an HIV+ person, don't do it with anyone. Amen. -- Jay Schuster <jay@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'