|
I
went on to the Drudge Report today and read something
that must be a bunch of shit or a complete hoax: “MAG: 25%
OF NEW HIV-INFECTED GAY MEN SOUGHT OUT VIRUS, SAYS SAN FRAN
HEALTH OFFICIAL.” is there any truth to this? The link was
e-mailed all over my office today and it makes gay men look
awful if it’s true. Can you prove or disprove Matt Drudge’s
outrageous claims? I sincerely hope that it’s not true and
that Matt Drudge’s “journalist” badge is revoked!
—Can’t
Trust Drudge
Sorry,
CTD, but we can’t take away Drudge’s journalism badge. First,
there’s no such thing as a journalism badge (good thing, too,
since I probably couldn’t get one), and second, the claim
that 25 percent of all new HIV infections in gay men are intentional
wasn’t made by Matt Drudge. Drudge doesn’t do much actual
reporting; any Drudge Report regular can tell you that
his Web site is almost entirely composed of links to stories
in other publications. (Where would the Washington Post
Web site be without Drudge?) All Drudge is guilty of is disseminating
a claim made in the February issue of Rolling Stone.
Gregory Freeman wrote the story that Drudge—who seems takes
a perverse delight in pumping stories that make gay men look
awful—trumpeted on his Web site. Freeman’s piece focuses on
so-called “bug chasers,” HIV-negative gay men who are actively
trying to get infected, and “gift givers,” HIV-positive gay
men who are only too happy to infect other gay men. After
a depressing slog through the cracked thinking of one bug
chaser, Freeman whips a little amateur psychoanalysis on us
(“[Some] see HIV infection as inevitable . . . so they decide
to take control of the situation and infect themselves. For
others, deliberately infecting themselves is the ultimate
taboo . . . and that has a strong erotic appeal for some men
who have tried everything else.”), then introduces Dr. Bob
Cabaj, director of behavioral-health services for San Francisco
County.
“Some
men consciously seek the virus,” Freeman writes, paraphrasing
Cabaj, “while many more are just as actively seeking HIV but
are in denial and wouldn’t call themselves bug chasers.” Then
Freeman blows his wad, spewing the shocking sound bite that
the Drudge Report made famous: “Cabaj estimates that
at least 25 percent of all newly infected gay men fall into
that category,” i.e., guys consciously or subconsciously seeking
the virus.
The day after Drudge broke the story, Cabaj accused Freeman
of fabricating his quotes. In an interview with Newsweek,
Cabaj denied ever saying that 25 percent of the new infections
in gay men are due to bug chasing. Freeman told Newsweek
that he quoted Cabaj accurately and implied that Cabaj got
cold feet once the story hit the cable news talk shows. “I
can only imagine that now that it’s getting a lot of attention,”
Freeman told Newsweek, “people are getting worried.”
Who to believe? On the one hand, I know from personal experience
that at least 25 percent of the people who work in AIDS—how
can I put this nicely?—are gutless wonders. People who work
in HIV/AIDS have told me things in on-the-record interviews
that they denied saying once their quotes were published and
the shit hit the fan. On the other hand, Freeman goes on to
make such a huge, glaring, obvious error that any reasonable
person has to doubt his skills as a reporter—and his motives.
After trotting out the 25 percent figure, Freeman writes this:
“With about 40,000 new infections in the United States per
year, according to government reports, that would mean around
10,000 each year are attributable to that more liberal definition
of bug chasing.”
Uh, no. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimates that there are “approximately 40,000 new HIV infections
occurring in the United States every year,” only 42 percent
of the total figure are occurring in men who have sex with
men. (The rest of the infections are attributed to heterosexual
sex and IV drug use.) That means the number of new infections
in gay and bisexual men each year is roughly 17,000, not 40,000.
Even if that sensational 25 percent figure is accurate—and
that’s one motherfuckin’ huge if (there’s no actual data backing
it up, only a disputed quote)—then that would mean there are
“only” 4,200 conscious and subconscious bug chasers getting
infected every year, not 10,000. What’s worse, by lumping
conscious bug chasers (a very small number of very crazy assholes)
in with subconscious bug chasers (a comparatively large number
of self-
destructive gay dopes) Freeman dishonestly distorts the scale
of the problem.
Considering how badly Freeman botched some relatively simple
and widely available stats and how Freeman sought to distort
the size of the problem, Freeman’s entire piece is easily
dismissed. But the damage has been done—thanks in part to
Drudge—and the 25 percent figure, as Andrew Sullivan complained
on Salon last week, “will soon be accepted as fact,”
despite the story having “completely fallen apart.”
Personally, I don’t think Freeman’s story has completely fallen
apart, nor I do think the entire piece should be dismissed.
While the 25 percent figure is clearly bullshit, the barebacking
Web sites Freeman writes about are real and some men with
HIV are only too willing to engage in unprotected sex with
guys who aren’t HIV-positive. And before gay men congratulate
themselves for “only” making up 42 percent of all new HIV
infections, consider this: gay and bisexual men make up only
3 percent of the population. Regardless of how gay men are
getting the virus—bug chasing? stupid risk taking?—gay men
are getting infected at appalling rates.
And why are gay men getting infected at such alarming rates?
There’s a clue in Freeman’s piece. . . .
When I read Freeman’s piece I didn’t think that the now infamous
and disputed “25 percent” was the most shocking quote in it.
To my mind that honor goes to Daniel Castellanos, assistant
director of community education at Gay Men’s Health Crisis
in New York. Castellanos, who acknowledges that the bug chasing
phenomenon is real, was asked if he would try to talk someone
out of trying to catch HIV. “If someone comes to me and says
he wants to get HIV,” Castellanos replies, “I might work with
him around the why he wants to do it. . . . But if in the
end that’s a decision he wants to make, there’s a point where
we have to respect people’s decisions.”
While active “bug chasing” may only account for a handful
of new infections in gay men, the inability of HIV/AIDS educators
to aggressively challenge gay men surely accounts for a large
chunk. Since the arrival on the scene of effective treatments
for HIV, gay men in urban areas have been busily re-creating
the kind of sexual subcultures that laid out the welcome mat
for HIV in the 1970s. HIV infection rates and other STDs are
soaring and—who knows?—perhaps some unknown STD is gaining
a toehold in urban gay scenes, just as HIV did in the ’70s.
And at the same time that HIV infection rates and other STDs
are rising among gay men, the education strategy in vogue
at GMHC and other AIDS organizations is this: We must respect
the decisions gay men make—up to and including the decision
to get infected with HIV for shits and giggles. It’s a bizarre
and, judging from those HIV infection rates, shockingly ineffective
strategy.
Perhaps it’s time for GMHC and other AIDS groups to start
telling gay men the truth. Taking stupid sexual risks—even
if risk turns you on—is reckless; anal sex on the first date—even
with condoms—is a bad idea; giving someone HIV—even if he
wants it—is immoral; being a huge fucking slut—as popular
as that might make you—has physical and emotional consequences.
And, finally, gay men need to be told that stupid decisions
don’t deserve anyone’s respect.
So long as AIDS educators refuse to challenge gay men, HIV
infection rates will continue to rise. That’s the real scandal,
CTD, not the link on Drudge or Freeman’s story or the ineptitude
of Rolling Stone’s editors.
mail@savagelove.net
|
Columns
& Opinions
