Let's Talk About Bareback

Apologies for the lack of posts recently.  I'd like to say I'll be back posting regularly, but until I get back on track with various writing commitments, I'm afraid I will probably continue to be a little sporadic with my posting.  Let's begin then with a topic that continues to fascinate me, and which I regard as a key issue concerning contemporary gay identity, and the regulation of identity, bareback sex.

I finally for around to watching the How to Survive a Plague documentary.  I'd been really excited about watching it and found it a very emotionally draining documentary.   That said, I think it would have been a little shorter, and it did seem at times to lack the energy that was suggested in the trailer.  The "plague" moment from Kramer - which seems to dramatic in the trailer - actually sent a shiver down my spine when shown in context.  The descent into chaos, argument, and division will be familiar to anyone involved in gay politics and campaigning. Kramer's eruption, and genuine passion - shown in that context - is all the more powerful and underlines the importance of that unifying voice.  The documentary also helped to clarify in my mind the role of TAG in relation to Act Up!  A post on the Petrelis Files blog in recent days reveals how TAG continue to be a controversial group, and this documentary again helps younger gay men like myself to understand those historical tensions.

The documentary also left me wondering whether in the long run, it was worth it.  The trials that people pushed for, didn't work, and the documentary seemed to suggest that actually we would have got to the same destination whether there had been any intervention by the LGBT community or not.  Potentially incendiary stuff.   On a personal level, the documentary persuaded me to order a HIV home testing kit.   If it does nothing else, but inspire many viewers to do that, I suspect the film-makers will be pleased.

A really interesting post on BuzzFeed also caught my attention.  It's a blog by Kyle Bella who wonders why it's so hard to talk about bareback sex.  After all, we know more and more men who have sex with men, are having that sex without condoms.  Bareback is - I would argue - already normative in gay pornography, and will - if it isn't already - become normative in sexual practice.  We also see HIV rates continuing to rise, creating ever more socio-legal pressure for responses, health-policy responses such as we've seen in LA regarding pornography, and also specific campaigns such as that currently being waged against bareback company Treasure Island Media (albeit a particularly botched effort).

The puzzlement of Bella is - I suspect - shared by some, but I think most people know the reasons.  The trouble is the reasons are inconvenient, both politically and in policy terms.   If for example, we accept that bareback sex feels better - that it is a much more sensory engaging experience, then the arguments of safer sex campaigners over recent years will be seen as being less than completely honest.  It is also an emotionally different experience, and this again is not truly engaged with by many campaigners.

Our continued socio-legal pre-occupation with bareback sex, also furthers any fetishisation of bareback sex, whilst - and I can't emphasis this enough - the failure of large sections of 'our' community to be dropping dead from bareback sex, or popping up on a Friday night in a club looking like hell, dying from AIDS makes any 'HIV is a bad thing' message difficult to deliver.  Not that anyone has been trying to.  Recent years have seen campaigns focus on testing, and HIV campaigners seem more focused on discrimination than health needs (all of which fuels silence about being positive, or knowing if one is positive).

Then we have direct attempts to silence debates around bareback. This has taken the form of attempts to snuff out companies like Treasure Island Media (which I would suggest reflect back the reality of our sexual play) and, as this Queerty story revealed last month, Facebook banning a page about bareback (after it hit 20,000 likes).

Can we all honestly state whether we engage in bareback sex, and why?  I don't think our culture currently allows for that.  If we can't even be honest about our own behaviours, we are not going to get to grips with this subject.

A conservative night for America?

It's a question I found myself pondering as the markets and world digest the results from last night.  By which I mean, four more years for Obama as President, a Republican House and a Democrat Senate.  Several billion dollars later, and we're seemingly back where we started.  Obama teased supporters with claims of 'the best is still to come', but unlike the Parliamentary system of government, he is limited by a legislature which was seemingly broken before the election, and is likely to remain broken when the new Congress take up their seats in January.

Moreover, America is still staring down the barrel of a gun at a budget crisis which needs resolving before the year is out.

I made clear yesterday my support for Obama, and my expectation that he would indeed win.  Yet, four years on from his first victory, warm words and promises are not enough for this observer.  His promise to LGBT voters (seen on this page of his website) was just one commitment - to not be Mitt Romney.  Beyond that, he made not one pledge on LGBT rights.  Yes, he's better than Romney.  Yes, Romney would have been bad news for LGBT rights, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep poking Obama with a stick.

The Supreme Court

So what's coming up?  Perry and the issue of constitutionality and same-sex marriage is heading to the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Ginsberg, has indicated she's considering standing down (she's 79) and that means a moderate Democrat could replace her in this Presidential term.  The question is whether to risk waiting until the mid-terms and the hope of Democrats re-taking the House.  Of course, they could end up losing the Senate so I'd expect a new Supreme Court Justice appointment sooner rather than later.  This offers an opportunity to renew the status quo.  Scalia will be 80 in four years time and a Democrat Presidential victory in 2016 could offer an opportunity to re-balance the Court, but it's unlikely - it seems to me - to happen before then.  All of which matters, when deciding issues such as same-sex rights, and the continued debates around abortion.  Better preserve the status quo than end up having a clear Republican-controlled Supreme Court (as would have been likely with a Romney victory).

The Result

The American electoral college system means that Obama won convincingly, and also won measured by the popular vote.  However, the votes in individual States were very close and if anything served to illustrate just how divided socially, politically, and economically America is in 2012.  It's going to take more than fine oratory to fix it.

Nonetheless, as this campaign advanced (and with some gentle prodding from the Vice President), Obama seems to have increasingly found a voice on LGBT issues as he recognised the need to energise his base and re-create the coalition of voters that elected him back in 2008.   Hopefully, this will continue in office, combining hard-policy with cultural leadership.

Coupled with the ticking bomb of a demography shift between now and 2016, and no election will ever be the same again.  Some Republicans- notably Jeb Bush - understand this and have spoken eloquently of the need to change, but the dominant Tea Party tendency does not.  Just as with the British Conservative Party, they have established themselves as 'the nasty party' in the minds of many and will need to modernise and re-cast themselves in 2016.  If they want to be in with a shot in 2016, they need to take some quantum leaps on social issues -such as same-sex marriage, and also on race.  If they fail to do so, they will never hold the Presidency again.

A Representative Breakthrough?

We can rejoice in some truly wonderful results.  Tammy Baldwin (who I mentioned in my post yesterday) made history by becoming the first out Senator-elect.  Well done Wisconsin!  She is replaced in her House seat by openly gay man Mark Pocan.  They are among a number of openly gay men and women who were elected at a Federal and State level.   This is important not only for having strong LGBT voices in elected politics, not only for having people in office who 'get it', but also for providing visible role-models to LGBT youth and for creating visible community leaders who happen to identify as LGBT.  They are creating change legally, and also socially.

However, we shouldn't get carried away.  Michele Bachmann, former candidate for the Republican nomination - and someone who seems bat shit crazy to many European eyes - narrowly won in Minnesota.

Ballot Measures:  Marriage

Beyond the national race a series of ballot measures took place which are likely to deliver transformative change to millions.   Maine, Maryland and Washington have all voted in favour of introducing same-sex marriage in state ballots.  Minnesota (the same state that re-elected Bachmann) faced a vote on amending the constitution to effectively ban same-sex marriage and the amendment was rejected.  A clean sweep for LGBT campaigners.  Add in two states - Washington and Colorado - legalising the recreational use of marijuana, and you could be forgiven for thinking that America had suddenly swerved towards a liberal future.

Ballot Measures:  Sex Trafficking

However, take a look at what might be called a Democrat state - California - and you  see a different picture.  A measure to finally remove the death penalty was rejected whilst a new measure to toughen the law on sex trafficking (and arguably creating more problems than it solves in relation to sex work) was passed.

The official (and impartial) advice set out the implications of passing the measure on trafficking:

This measure makes several changes to state law related to human trafficking. Specifically, it (1) expands the definition of human trafficking, (2) increases the punishment for human trafficking offenses, (3) imposes new fines to fund services for human trafficking victims, (4) changes how evidence can be used against human trafficking victims, and (5) requires additional law enforcement training on handling human trafficking cases. The measure also places additional requirements on sex offender registrants.

Expanded Definition of Human Trafficking. This measure amends the definition of human trafficking under state law. Specifically, the measure defines more crimes related to the creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors as a form of human trafficking. For example, duplicating or selling these obscene materials could be considered human trafficking even if the offender had no contact with the minor depicted. In addition, with regard to sex trafficking cases involving minors, prosecutors would not have to show that force or coercion occurred. (This would make state law similar to federal law.)

More Severe Criminal Penalties for Human Trafficking. This measure increases the current criminal penalties for human trafficking under state law. For example, the measure increases the prison sentence for labor trafficking crimes to a maximum of 12 years per offense, and for sex trafficking of adults to up to 20 years per offense. Sex trafficking of minors that involved force or fraud would be punishable by up to a life term in prison. In addition, the measure specifies that offenders convicted of human trafficking with previous convictions for human trafficking receive additional five-year prison terms for each of those prior convictions. Under the measure, offenders convicted of human trafficking that resulted in great bodily injury to the victim could be punished with additional terms of up to ten years. The measure also permits criminal courts to impose fines of up to $1.5 million for human trafficking offenses.

Programs for Human Trafficking Victims. The measure requires that the funds collected from the above fines support services for victims of human trafficking. Specifically, 70 percent of funds would be allocated to public agencies and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services to such victims. The measure requires that the remaining 30 percent be provided to law enforcement and prosecution agencies in the jurisdiction where the charges were filed and used for human trafficking prevention, witness protection, and rescue operations.

Changes Affecting Court Proceedings. The measure also affects the trial of criminal cases involving charges of human trafficking. Specifically, the measure prohibits the use of evidence that a person was involved in criminal sexual conduct (such as prostitution) to prosecute that person for that crime if the conduct was a result of being a victim of human trafficking. The measure also makes evidence of sexual conduct by a victim of human trafficking inadmissible for the purposes of attacking the victim’s credibility or character in court. In addition, this measure disallows certain defenses in human trafficking cases involving minors. For example, a defendant could not claim as a defense being unaware of the minor’s age.

Law Enforcement Training. This measure requires all peace officers employed by police and sheriff’s departments and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) who perform field or investigative work to undergo at least two hours of training on how to handle human trafficking complaints. This training would have to be completed by July 1, 2014 or within six months of the officer being assigned to the field or investigative work.

 Expanded Requirements for Sex Offender Registration. This measure requires registered sex offenders to provide the names of their internet providers and identifiers to local police or sheriff’s departments. Such identifiers include e-mail addresses, user names, screen names, or other personal identifiers for internet communication and activity. If a registrant changes his or her internet service account or changes or adds an internet identifier, the individual must notify law enforcement within 24 hours of such changes.

Although undoubtedly well meaning, the measure has the effect of extending the definition of 'trafficking' to extend those acts which people would not ordinarily consider to be part of the same legal problem.  Consensual sex work arguably falls within the ambit of the measure and anyone receiving financial benefit from this activity could be prosecuted and forced to register as a sex offender.  It's badly drafted and could have a series of unintended consequences.

Ballot Measures: Condoms in Porn

In LA County, the much-discussed 'condom measure' was passed.  With 55.85% in favour, Measure B.  Here's what the 'official' advice stated on this measure:

The proposed amendment would require producers of adult films to obtain a public health permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (the "Department") in order to engage in the production of adult films for commercial purposes, and to pay a permit fee set by the Department to offset the cost of enforcement. The measure would require the use of condoms for all acts of anal or vaginal sex during the production of adult films, as well as the posting of both the public health permit and a notice to performers regarding condom use. Producers are required to provide a written exposure control plan describing how the ordinance will be implemented. A "producer" means any person or entity that produces, finances or directs adult films for commercial purposes. 

Violation of the ordinance would be subject to both civil fines and criminal misdemeanor charges. The Department would be authorized to enforce the provisions of the ordinance, including suspending or revoking the public health permit due to violations of the ordinance, or any other law including applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code, blood borne pathogen standard, California Code of Regulations, or the exposure plan of the producer. Suspension or revocation of the public health permit requires notice and an opportunity for an administrative review, unless the Department found or reasonably suspected immediate danger to the public health and safety, in which case the Department could immediately suspend or revoke the public health permit, initiate a criminal complaint, or issue a fine, pending an administrative hearing. 

The measure, if approved by the voters, may only be repealed by a subsequent vote of the electors or by an amendment of the Los Angeles County Charter superseding the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors is authorized to amend the ordinance by a majority vote in order to further the purposes of the measure.

As I've previously speculated, where LA goes, other may follow.  It is not a California-wide ban, and it will be interesting to see how it operates in practice.  Presumably, some stimulation will be provided to the local economy as the County looks to hire condom inspectors who can monitor the new law.  Unfortunately, any such economic stimulus is likely to be off-set by the exodus of studios as they look elsewhere to film there porn.  Consumers continue to have a clear preference for condomless porn, and so this measure will simply relocate the production of porn, rather than change it.

I'm particularly curious to see if anywhere else seeks to replicate the law.

A conservative settlement?

For Brit observers, you might want to reflect on that powerful speech line deployed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron - "So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative" - as a reminder that the marriage issue can be re-defined not as an issue of the left, but as a very conservative institution.  I've explored this previously in a HuffPo piece you can check out here.

As much as the same-sex marriage ballot results are victories for the LGBT community, they should also indicate the need for a debate and recognition of plurality when it comes to the expression of identity.  The embrace of domesticity and a very heteronormative concept of marriage holds less appeal to all those queer sluts out there - their identity apparently cast as increasingly embarrassing and a source of discomfort more generally (take the moves to ban nudity in the Castro as but one illustrative example).

Last night and the results that continued to filter through today were truly great for the LGBT community - rightly a source of celebration.  However, let us not lose sight of the battles ahead and the debates the LGBT 'community' must face up to as legal reforms create new social - and indeed legal - pressures and questions that we must all respond to.   We live in an age of increased acceptance of the homosexual identity, but increased silence about homosexual sex.  A curious division of the homo and the sexual, and one that some are starting to debate, discuss and consider (see here)

Are you Clean? Narratives in HIV and Bareback Sex

Someone tweeted a link to this story yesterday (apologies, I can't remember who to credit you) in the Huffington Post, a fascinating piece about the term 'clean' in the context of HIV.  The author - Mark S King - notes how the term is used as part of the HIV conversation, as in: "Are you clean?"  In other words, are you HIV free?

Back in 2011 I posted this video, which brilliantly satirises the DDF narrative which has become common among men seeking to hook up with other men, particularly online.  The question is often asked of men who bareback: "Are you clean?"  as if that amounts to an HIV test.  Say "yes" and you're in, say "I don't know" or "I'm HIV positive but..." and you're typically rejected.  The culture rewards dishonesty and thus embeds an ironic 'don't ask, don't tell' policy into causal sex.

King addresses this issue, the growing involvement of law and also the cultural implication of referring to someone who is HIV+ as being in some way 'unclean'.  It's a brilliant piece well worth a read.

HIV+ and Slutdom

Josh of Confessions of a Bareback Sauna Slut (NSFW) 'fame' has published on his blog a video that was previously available via the porn performer Christian Knox.  Josh has regularly talked about his promiscuous sexual behaviour, that this behaviour is bareback (condomless) and most recently, that he is now HIV+ (and continuing to engage in bareback sex).  I would have embedded the video here but there is the occasional (very brief) bit of sexual footage which intercuts this video interview.

The video was filmed in Chariots Sauna in Shoreditch, London in mid-January 2012. They took over a small cubicle in the sauna, and it was filmed on Cristian’s iPhone.  For many it will be the first time they are able to put a voice to the man. He is un-repentant about his behaviour in the past, or his continued bareback sex.  He explains his rationale and his je ne regrette rein philosophy in the course of the video and comes across as comfortable with his status and behaviour.  He also comes across as articulate and (I think this is incredibly significant) likeable.  Likability is important in reaching out to a wider audience, in enabling people to feel comfortable for long enough to 'tune in' to the message that is being presented.  

This presentation is important in putting a face - and now voice - to the increasingly visible identity of the HIV+ barebacker which goes some way to helping wider society get their heads around people who choose a mode of behaviour which puts them at greater health risk, and then having become positive, they become the transmitter to someone else.  This is a form of behaviour that policy-makers and legislators around the world are increasingly concerned with, whilst jurists must grapple with the criminal law implications that arise from this increased policy focus.

Check out the video interview (NSFW) here.

Brave New World? LA Condom Law In Force

Did you notice it?  Yesterday, a new Los Angeles city ordinance (law) come into force requiring porn performers to wear condoms when filming.  The full title of the Act is the: CITY OF LOS ANGELES SAFER SEX IN THE ADULT FILM INDUSTRY ACT.  A PDF of the full act is available from the Office of the LA City Clerk and can be viewed directly here.  I was slightly amused to discover via this ordinance that nudity or sexual activity shouldn't be visible or audible to other members of the public when being filmed, which seems vaguely farcical given the amount of bonking that can be heard in many a hotel room at the best of times. 

The key sections of the Ordinance can be viewed below:

(1) An "adult film" is defined as any film, video, multimedia or other representation of sexual intercourse in which performers actually engage in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration, including but not limited to penetration by a penis, finger, or inanimate object; oral contact with the anus or genitals of another performer; and/or any other activity that may result in the transmission of blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193(b).

This seems deliberately designed to encompass all sexual activity but how does that equate to risk?

(2) "Producer of adult film" is defined as any person or entity directly engaged in the creation of adult films.

So stand down horny boyfriend with an iPhone, you should be safe under this provision.  You need to be 'directly' engaged, not indirectly (much dancing on that pin head to come).

(3) "Filmed" and "filming" refer to the recording of any adult film, regardless of media.

So, should you be a horny boyfriend filming with an iPhone deliberately to make an adult film, the phone counts - it doesn't need to be super duper filming technology.  Presumably, it also relates to audio only recording which is intriguing (and another potential exploratory case).

(4) All producers of adult films issued permits under the authority of the City of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of this Code or any other law authorizing the issuance of permits for commercial filming are required to maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and/or any other potentially infectious materials controls consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5193. Engineering and work practice controls include, but are not limited to: (a) Simulation of sex acts using acting, production and post- production techniques; (b) Ejaculation outside workers' bodies; (c) Provision of and required use of condoms whenever acts of vaginal or anal sex are performed during the production of an adult film; and (d) The provision of condom-safe water-based or silicone-based lubricants to facilitate the use of condoms.

So if the State controlled sex, that's what you'd get  Bye bye Boy Butter.   Interestingly, you don't even have to be having sex, just pretending to have sex evokes the requirements to have a permit.  Yes, the mind does boggle.  It also doesn't require condoms for oral sex - which is interesting.

(5) Any film permit issued under the authority of the City of Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to Section 12.22(A)(13) of this Code or any other law authorizing the issuance of permits for commercial filming for the production of an adult film must expressly condition said permit on compliance with subsection (4) of this section. Any such permit shall contain the following language: "Permittee must abide by all applicable workplace health and safety regulations, including California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193, which mandates barrier protection, including condoms, to shield performers from contact with blood or other potentially infectious material during the production of films."

(6) The City shall charge, or shall direct any other person or entity contracting with the City to administer the film permitting process, to charge, entertainment industry customers seeking permits for the production of adult films a fee sufficient to allow periodic inspections to ensure compliance with the conditions setforth in Section 12.22.1 (B)(4).

Now, I should say that I am not trained in US law (big big caveat!) but given the wording of the provision, I read California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 5193.  According to the ordinance, this requires barrier protection (condoms) and is being ignored.  I would welcome some input from US academics/activists on this point as I've had a quick read of the regulations and can't see it.  Where is this requirement?  Moreover, the regulations were quite clearly not intended (I would suggest) to extend so widely as to encompass such activity.  I must be missing something!

LA Condom Measures

By now, many of you will be aware of the news last week from LA regarding new rules on the use of condoms in the production of porn films.  I'm knocking together a piece for elsewhere so forgive me for not commenting further than my previous posts (see this and this, and also this).  However, you can read more about the latest developments here on LA Weekly and also this piece from the wonderful Katherine Sansom.

Equality Delivery System Event

This event may be of interest to some North East England based readers:

Equality Delivery System Event 
Promoting equality for people in Sunderland Gateshead and South Shields 

Thursday 26th January 2012
Either 9.30 am - 12.30 pm OR 1.30 – 4.30pm
MPH Training & Conference Centre Unit 2A, Stonehills Complex, Shields Road, Gateshead, NE10 0HW, Tel 0191 4952895, Fax 0191 4694862,
www.mph-conference.co.uk 

We would like to ask for your views about equality in healthcare
We would like you to help us rate how well we are doing Can you help us?

To book a place, discuss any requirements, or travelling arrangements, please contact any of the following people in your area: Gateshead: Coleen Knox on 0191 4453277 or email coleen.knox@ghnt.nhs.uk Sunderland: Stephanie Smith on 0191 5656256 or email… stephanie.smith@chsft.nhs.uk South Shields: Julie Murray on 0191 2831624 and email julie.murray@stft.nhs.uk

Positive to Positive

If you're tested for HIV, you'll know your status and by knowing if you are HIV positive, you can change your sex life to protect others.  In short; know it, bag it.  So goes the logical of many contemporary safe sex programmes.

It's for this reason that a report out from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is all the more explosive. Fifty percent of new HIV infections in Lancaster County are caused by persons who already know they have the disease, according to Ken Culton, a nurse consultant with the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the breakdown of how male and females become infected varies, Kirchner said. Eighty-five percent of women with HIV acquired it via heterosexual sex with an infected partner, and 15 percent from IV drug use.

Men having sex with other men accounts for 74 percent of males with HIV infection, heterosexual sex for 14 percent, IV drug use for 8 percent, and the rest from a combination or unknown reasons. Around 21 percent of the estimated 1.2 million HIV-infected persons in the U.S. still aren't aware they have the disease.

Let's also not forget the economics of HIV/AIDS.  The report also includes the statistic that avoiding just one HIV infection saves an estimated $365,000 in medical care.

Whilst even this reports indicates that the continued public health focus for HIV/AIDS workers in this part of the US will be upon testing those who don't know they are positive/their status, it also hints at the growing issue coming down the track.

That is to say those who know they are HIV positive, who have sex with someone else who knows they re HIV positive and transmit that infection.  This is to say nothing of those who think they might be HIV positive, or don't really care whether they are HIV positive and have unprotected sex with someone else who thinks someone might be positive but isn't sure or who doesn't care whether they are HIV positive.  Lawyers will focus on questions of consent, intention and recklessness but social behaviour is seemingly evolving at a much faster pace than both health and legal strategies.

Read the full story here.