The medias hindering hand
But let’s return to our events. Without a doubt, metamphetamine, such as cocaine and alkyl nitrites ("poppers"), are immune-suppressing drugs. Many studies have suggested that taking them during unprotected sex may facilitate the transmission of HIV. Also they are drugs that cause desinhibition of behavior, and in this context the use of condoms may be taken less seriously or even disregarded. This surely is a serious problem that the gay community in the western world needs to address with frankness and intelligence. But from here to practically linking homosexuality and the use of drugs to the deadly HIV super-infection is a large step, which has been dug by stigmatizing and discriminating attitudes that in no way help preventive actions.
During those events one had to hear newscasters stating that methanphetamines are "the ‘in’ drug among the gay community" or read in respected newspapers that "not all people possibly implicated wished to voluntarily cooperate with the investigation". Did they truly believe that these men would not resist to be only taken as possible transmitters of an illness instead of as human beings with undeniable human rights, with all the consequences this could have on their lives if they decided to cooperate? How could they evoke with such impunity and roughness the most stereotypical and prejudicial views on homosexuality?
The way the medias addressed the New York case, with the help of the scientific and political parties’ complacency, reflected a moralistic and simple-minded approach that refused to look at the larger perspective of what was happening. First of all, hadn’t we been told that unprotected sex practices between heterosexual partners were the ones on the rise and that women represented the most affected population? Then why this alarm on homosexual relations which reminds us of the homophobic hysteria of two decades ago?
It is true that there are data and studies that show a rise in HIV cases among men who have sex with men in industrialized cities, but as highlighted by Martin Delanay, founder of the Project Inform, it would be cynical to blame the U.S. gay community for the spreading of a new HIV super-virus when prevention programs have been suffering from budget cut-backs at state and above all federal levels for so long now in this country, and even more so in 2005 according to the draft budget of the Bush administration. Especially when you add to that the fact that programs have had to adapt to the political ideals that give priority to sexual abstinence and pretend to limit the drug use reduction strategy to the simple "just say no" program that in her moment Nancy Reagan defended so eagerly.
The heart of the matter is to decide whether it is preferable to take on the prevention weariness within the gay community by bringing back messages based on the fear of a lethal virus, even though these have yet to be proven efficient, which would also mean bringing back the stigma on homosexual men as "irresponsible people who deliberately pass the virus on to others". Or, instead try to explore without moral prejudices and from a point of view of risk and harm reduction the reality of the practices of men who have sex with men in an environment that includes illegal substances.
If we choose the alarm and fear option, the most likely result is that people will go even deeper underground with their practices, not for fear of the virus, but of being judged and sentenced by society and their own community, which naturally will make reaching them and forming a constructive dialogue even more difficult. If we choose the option of respect and comprehension, offering tools for them to manage and measure their own risk level during sex and the use of drugs, it may allow us to get closer to these people who possibly use drugs and sex as a way to boost their self-esteem that has been beaten down by a hostile reaction to their sexual identity and lifestyle in regards to being gay men.
EATN - European AIDS Treatment News, Volume 13, I – Spring 2005
