Welcome to my world. I am a middle-aged male locked in the good fight. I try to balance work with being a good father and husband and even have a little fun once in a while. Expect a free-form collection of musings, observations and the occassional rant.
Published on October 22, 2005 By whosyurdaddy0417 In Blogging
How ironic that I chose to start my then and now blog drafts today. I was channel surfing today in pursuit of the perfect Saturday afternoon movie. You know the type: Light and breezy, you've seen it at least ten times and it in no way reminds you of some ex-lover. I was about to cruise the dreaded networks (because they edit and show commercials) when I came across what I consider one of Tom Hanks' better roles. Philadelphia. While this particular movie in no way fits the bill of what I was looking for I was compelled to watch it. And now I am compelled to discuss the AIDS issue and how the landscape has changed since I first began paying attention to it.

For those who may not know the movie Philadelphia here are the nuts and bolts. Tom Hanks plays a closeted(vs openly) gay lawyer who develops the AIDS virus and gets visibly ill. He attempts to conceal his disease as well as his lifestyle from his co-workers and superiors. When it is believed that he has AIDS he is summarily terminated by his firm under the false accusation of incompetence. He knows he is being fired for his being sick,and gay, so he seeks legal counsel from a ambulance-chasing black lawyer (Denzel Washington). Washington's character is initially callous, homophobic and reluctant to defend him. Eventually he takes the case and sues the old firm for teminating Andy (Hanks). Of course I could describe the whole movie but the important points to be gleaned are that some people get a dose of tolerance, including Washington's character, and the biases and stigmas towards the disease and the homosexual community are exposed in great detail.
As the movie unfolds, even the staunchest homophobe will find themselves realizing that in the end, we are not talking about a disease. We are talking about people.

The case was heavily publicized. The lifestyle was stressed more than the sickness. Jokes were made, prejudices and apathy and even hatred were exposed. Gay-bashing was rampant from unlikely sources and few focused on the fact that a man was wrongly terminated and that a law was broken. But behind all of that was a nice guy with a loving family. His partner was caring and supportive and for the most part he was just a regular guy who happened to be dying from an insidiuos, devastating and very misunderstood disease. And he walked into the courtroom every day with signs in his face that read "God hates homos" and "AIDS cures homosexuality". Because it is Hollywood the ending was fairly predictable. Andy died, people cried and his lawyer learned a little something about compassion. But Hollywood is not real life.

I remember there were many attitudes towards AIDS in the 80's. It was not considered a real threat to many. There was actually apathy (and a consequent lack of funding) on the part of the heteros because it was a "gay" disease between gay men only. But noone really thought about the bisexual or the husband who secretly liked men and consequently infected his wife. Noone thought about blood transfusions and intravenous drug use. The first story I heard of a "straight" person getting the disease from a transfusion certainly opened my eyes wide. When such stories began surfacing I actually believed that I could walk down the street, trip and fall on a dirty soup spoon and be infected. So condom sales skyrocketed and clinics gave out pamphlets on safe sex and Congress reluctantly gave out more money for research. But tragic news emerged. There was no cure, no antiserum and no chance of survival. And it was spreading worldwide at an alarming rate.

During the 90's a lot of progress was made to curb the disease's spread and infection rates among homosexuals dropped. Drug therapys made it possible that HIV positive people may live long lives. But the casual sex and needle-swapping crowd did a good job of ravaging the community regardless of color or social status. But thanks to such reliable sources of bigotry and bullshit as the religious right and the tragically uninformed the stigma of AIDS as a "gay disease" persisted.

In the 21st century the AIDS virus is ravaging Africa and developing countries at a truly staggering rate. Accelerating rates of contraction, inability to educate the people (some Africans believe having unprotected sex with a virgin will cure the disease), lack of funding make efforts to stop it almost futile. I can only thank God (sarcasm duly noted) that the ass-backwards Catholic Church still forbids condoms in its doctrine. But the World community has stepped up, the US included, and we may make some progress soon. Education has slowed the infection rate in the US and longer life expectancies are the norm.

But for the sake of normalcy and my theme of "then and now" there are still the assholes that carry signs that say "God hates fags" and "AIDS cures Homosexuality". Aaaahhh, reminds me of my youth.

Comments
on Oct 22, 2005
Nice article!

From someone who is a testiment to the long term survival, I can honestly say life, (for people in the western world) living with HIV is getting easier, although still not comfortable with the uncertainty associated with this virus, instead of thinking about my demise I think about my future.

Let's hope this scourge can one day be rid of in all walks of life.

Cheers!
on Oct 22, 2005
we waste too many "nows" worrying about "whens". My thoughts are with you
on Oct 22, 2005
I can only thank God (sarcasm duly noted) that the ass-backwards Catholic Church still forbids condoms in its doctrine.


Before you the efforts of the Catholic Church to spread AIDS too much, you might also consider that included in that doctrine is a bit about no sex outside of marriage. Failure to wear a condom only spreads AIDS in this case if you were infected from another bodily fluid exchange, or say sharing needles whilst shooting heroin, which I believe they also frown upon.

- a proud Protestant, wearing one of those little rubber thingies over his Willie or John Thomas for years now......-
on Oct 22, 2005
Good article Whosyurdaddy!

I didn't agree with some of it though. The "religious right" and "bigotry" may carry some blame for the spread of AIDS. On the other hand, when a viable treatment was found and became widely used another terrible thing happened. People in high risk groups began to not only drop their guard against contracting the virus, but in many cases pursued contracting it as sort of a "badge of honor".

I have talked with people who purposely became infected to keep the statistics higher, "higher numbers attracts more press and more pressure on politicians".

I have had men in my ambulance who wouldn't answer any medical history questions in the presence of their wives. Why? Because their wives had no right to know that they were HIV positive.

If I suspected those patients of abusing their wives in any other way, I would be required by law to report it. Yet those oxygen thieves were murdering their wives and I couldn't say a thing without risking prison myself.

Yes, there is bigotry and yes too many people consider it a "gay disease" (interestingly enough, many in the Gay community do also), but giving a virus its own bill of rights and code of secrecy does little to help treat the problem and goes far to spread it a lot faster.

Nations in Africa are being devastated by HIV and AIDS. Why? Because the culture is based on sex at young ages. Because the culture doesn't consider birth control necessary (which kind of makes it hard to convince them that condoms will help). Because condoms are considered tools used by government and crime bosses to help control the poor population, so they are rejected. Because "if you have sex with a virgin you are safe"... right? Because since prostitutes in western nations don't get AIDS, you're safe if you have sex with prostituties... right?


The key to curbing the spread of HIV and AIDS is neither paranoia or secrecy. It is the same as for any other answer to any other problem, realistically looking at it and keeping the rhetoric out of it (an both sides).
on Oct 22, 2005
AIDS, it just ain't for gays anymore. people need to keep this in mind while they are having hetrosexual sex with multiple partners using unsafe practices.


phoenixboi you keep fighting the good fight, stay alive a while longer, who knows what science will come up with.
on Oct 22, 2005
~~AIDS, it just ain't for gays anymore. people need to keep this in mind while they are having hetrosexual sex with multiple partners using unsafe practices.~~


Well, my aunt is a heterosexual, and she contracted HIV from her ex-husband (and now has AIDS). She is proof that this can affect anyone, no matter your sexual preference, living situation, and so on.

It hurts very much to see her suffer. I pray for her everyday. I can only hope that strides continue to be made against this illness.
on Oct 22, 2005
Great to see you seem to feeling better PB. Love and blessings.

Seems we're back in the realm of sex and religion again. They seem to go together like apple pie and ice cream, inevitable bedfellows. You have to ask why there is so much moral energy generated by sexual condemnation. Why some people find it reasonable to distinguish between 'innocent' victims of disease and 'others'. Of course there are communicable diseases present in food, but no-one has ever blamed 'eaters' for getting sick. Nor have those who become ill through air-borne disease ever been morally castigated for breathing. While sex is not (quite) as 'essential' to life as eating and breathing, it is a significant part of all of our make ups. Why then is blame so often attached to those who contract sexually transmitted disease?

The answer seems to lie in our western religious heritage. I very much doubt that many of those who carry "God hates Fags" placards are sincere christians, but they are clearly tapping into centuries of christian culture.

In 'theory' the christian religion celebrates sex as a wonderful gift from God (as long as it takes place in the context of a monogamous, lifelong heterosexual marriage), but in practice it has even seen this arrangement as morally tainted:
"Now to the unmarried and widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than burn with passion." St. Paul. [1 Corinthians 7:8-9]
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the joy of sex!

Where this notion of sex as a source of guilt and shame comes from I'm not sure. It doesn't seem to have been present in Judaism (although, ironically I think it can now be found in some forms of Judaism through christian influence). Most likely it is an overspill from some form of gnostic thought.

Whatever the source or the reason, it is still doing great harm today. Living in Asia, where sex is more usually seen as morally neutral, gives me a clearer insight into the peculiarity of our culture's attitudes to sex.

I don't for one moment deny that there is such a thing as sexual immorality (rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse of minors, infidelity, and even 'sexual selfishness'), but the notion, usually implied rather than stated (because when stated it clearly reveals itself as ridiculous), that sex itself is a shameful and immoral thing remains an unnecessary cause of great harm.
on Oct 23, 2005
Living in Asia, where sex is more usually seen as morally neutral, gives me a clearer insight into the peculiarity of our culture's attitudes to sex.


Yeah like rampant pedophilia, child prostitution and rape as a legitimate form of revenge... Sure, Asia is SO enlightened!! ;~D

Sorry, but I after being around the block a few times, I just don't buy the "western culture is So-o-o-o-o-o terrible when it comes to sex because..." arguments. Yes, I do think that too many of us are so uptight about our bodies that we are afraid to even go see a doctor for genital related problems (among other examples), but I just don't see that the rest of the world has overcome their own sexual hang ups and myths. The myths that are so rampant in Africa are the biggest reason there is an AIDS epidemic there.

Are you really sitting there trying to tell us that Asian nations have beat their sexually transmitted disease problems? If you are I laugh in your face... Or am I misunderstanding your meaning? ;~D
on Oct 23, 2005
Or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

Yes, you are. Certainly here in Korea the traditional Confucian culture has very strong ideas about what is and is not permissible sexually. However, one thing that I noticed was that Koreans are also very frank in talking about sexual matters. This at first seemed surprising to a westerner use to the idea that (in our culture) a strongly prescriptive sexual morality often goes hand in hand with a certain prudish desire to avoid mention of the subject. Then I came to realise that it was possible to have strong ideas of 'right and wrong' in sexual matters that do not include a background umbra of believing that sex in and of itself is a matter for shame and guilt.

As I said above, I'm not sure where this came from, but it is a noticable feature of western culture, and for most of the west's existence that has been a christian culture. It is possible that a gnostic strain of thought crept in with the hellenistic philosophising that marked the early centuries of christian thought. I'm not a scholar of religious history, so I can't say for sure.

Asia has all of the problems that you mention, although I would point out it's a big continent with a diversity of cultural and religious backgrounds. Your characterisation of unenlightened behaviours is more apposite to some parts of Asia than others. My insider/outsider 'impression' of Korean culture is that it probably has less of a problem with some of those behaviours than most western countries, but I could be wrong.
on Oct 23, 2005
Para, one thing that I have noticed is that your contributions in these debates seem to focus very heavily on the area of sexually transmitted disease, which I suppose is related to your medical background. I can understand why you might see this as as much a moral as a medical problem, but for a moment look at it this way: if we did not have a notion of sex in our culture as an essentially shameful thing (body=bad, spirit=good as a gnostic might put it) might we not be able to deal with that in a more realistic way?

Christian missionaries who saw native peoples walking around naked in tropical climates as a clear sign of Satan's work, clearly did not have a healthy relationship with bodily realities. However, that is not the only way in which an unhealthy moral relationship to sexuality manifests itself in our culture; the permissive, pornographic 'other side of the coin' is just as clearly a product of the same guilt and shame - it justs revels in it, rather than blushes at it - a kind of moral 'equal and opposite reaction'.

Just some thoughts. As always a pleasure to cross swords with you.
on Oct 23, 2005
I'm glad I could stimulate some thoughts out there. Remember guys, I painted broad strokes from the perspective of my personal recollections of the situation from the 80's until today. I painted broad strokes, left a lot of stuff out and made some blanket statements. Great feedback!
on Oct 23, 2005
hey SPC : great Monty Python reference.

"every sperm is sacred"
on Oct 23, 2005
Now to the unmarried and widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than burn with passion." St. Paul. [1 Corinthians 7:8-9]
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the joy of sex


But an endorsement nonetheless. However one of the important things to be aware of with the writings of Paul, is that in some places he writes his own opinion (and he clearly delineates them, this is definitely one of them) and some places he writes inspired doctrine.

Some things have been spelled out clearly since the beginning of the church, other stuff has gone on best ideas and custom. Take baptism for example. It's clearly mandated that a new christian be baptised (I'm not getting into the concept of whether it's necessary to salvation.) But how? Dunking? Sprinkle 'em with holy water? or coca-cola?

The important bit is that they do it as a profession of their faith, and as a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The how is left unclear, but done by tradition. Amazingly, a great number of the splits in Christianity, and even more than a few wars have occured over breaches of tradition, not over issues actually stated in the Bible.

Biblical imagery is ripe with metaphor. Take the blood sacrifice as a picture of Christ's death for example. Another important that pops up in the New Testament is the marriage as a symbol of the relationship between the Church and Christ.

It's a big part of the reason for the importance of purity and monogamy with sex. (outside from it being commanded)Being unfaithful or sexually perverse is a symbol of perversity in your relation to Christ. (Don't think sex celebrates that? Try Song of Solomon, it's hot if you don't mind the excessive animal metaphor.) However, I am pretty sure that nowhere in the bible does it say that God will smite people with syphllis or aids.

I think the idea of Christianity being anti-sex comes from a number of sources. One of which being some confusion among Christians themselves at times. It is strongly anti-sex, outside of certain guidelines. But many people mix that up with no sex at any time. Sigh.

Sorry, I keep doing these long posts on the topics that brush on Christianity.

hey SPC : great Monty Python reference.


awww, shucks. You noticed.
on Oct 24, 2005
Chakgogka
Para, one thing that I have noticed is that your contributions in these debates seem to focus very heavily on the area of sexually transmitted disease, which I suppose is related to your medical background


That, or I somehow figured a thread entitled "The AIDS virus then and now" has something to do with STDs. ;~D

Whosyourdaddy
I'm glad I could stimulate some thoughts out there. Remember guys, I painted broad strokes from the perspective of my personal recollections of the situation from the 80's until today. I painted broad strokes, left a lot of stuff out and made some blanket statements. Great feedback!


Yes, your article was broad, which left more room for discussion. It is a good article and a great discussion.
on Oct 25, 2005
there are some very smart people out here. I'm very impressed and I look forward to reading all of you.

As for this article, I should have known going in that I was tackling a big subject under the guise of a comparative musing. And what surprises me most is that what got everyone going was my involving religion in the discussion. While I am not a religious man at all I was really discussing attitudes and my personal recollections of the era.

Blog on!