This is the fourth installment of the five-week commentary series, “Fessing Up: exploring the dirty little secrets of the gay community.” The purpose of the series, will be to open community discussion with frank and honest thoughts and debate. Ignoring problems that exist inside our community and among some of our LGBT siblings is dangerous. In order to make our community better, stronger and more equal, we have to begin taking responsibility and speaking out when our own community, personal and social health is threatened.

Although the series will deal specifically with gay and bisexual men, as well as men who have sex with men (MSM), it will contain possible truths and discussion for the whole LGBT community.

We know that issues like substance abuse, promiscuity, unsafe sex, HIV/AIDS and STD infection rates and unattainable ideals of male beauty have an impact on the sexual, social, legal, physical and psychological health of the LGBT community, but we have utterly failed at having open and frank conversation about how we can address these issues, support our LGBT brothers and sisters and make our entire community more healthy and more equal.

This week’s installment, “The Magnetic Divide and Viral Apartheid,” is written by Todd Heywood, a Michigan-based journalist, blogger and LGBT advocate. Read more from Todd at his personal blog, The Conversation Starts Here.

Not all queer men are equal — even in the confines of our self-imposed ghettos. Being gay and out is one thing; but being gay, HIV+ and out, that is an automatic move to isolation from the queer ghetto. With HIV being a more controllable illness, the question arises, why now? Why the viral apartheid and how do we address it?

In July of 2007, I was diagnosed with HIV. It was, to put it mildly, an earth shattering moment in my life. I had fallen in love with and cared for a man who had HIV when I first came out. I was there for him until he died in July 1996, having “failed” the newly released cocktails. At the time my partner was diagnosed, there was a level of awareness and connection about HIV that seems to have disappeared. At that time, HIV activism was interwoven into the very fabric of LGBT activism. The annual Pride march was preceded by a reading of the names of those lost to the HIV epidemic, and those names, placed on brightly colored ribbons lead the march. It was an honoring of the dead, and a promise to the future that we would not forget.

But then, with the miracle that were the cocktails, this began to change. We saw the fish bowls of condoms and literature about HIV disappear from gay bars. HIV itself, once talked of openly because even the most casually connected member of the LGBT community could count at least one death among associates, stopped being noted. A new reality set in — the reality of silence.

When my partner passed away, I had clocked over 100 people I personally knew — some as passing acquaintances, others as friends — who had died as a result of the epidemic. And I know for me, the advent of the cocktails, and the sudden stop-loss of death as a daily reminder allowed me to think HIV was no longer something to think about. I became a willing participant in the silencing of the epidemic. I did not want to think about it.

And that attitude continues today. The queer men’s community has created a series of social taboos to make sure HIV remains a silent and stealthy companion in all our realities. No longer do we have bowls of condoms at queer events. No longer do we read the names of the dead before our statewide march. We no longer keep our black suits and mourning gear cleaned and ready for the next call to a funeral. The reminders are few and far between.

Even our magazines have helped to silence and hide HIV. The advertisements for HIV medications show men — buffed, bare-chested sexually desirable men at that — climbing mountains. No one questions the truth in that advertising. Most of the men I know on the meds have side effects like uncontrolled loose bowels and lethargy. They would not be caught on the side of a mountain, unless there was a bathroom built in every 10 or so feet. And even then, they would only do so if they could assure themselves they had the energy to do it.

But it is the divide between the positives and the negatives — the magnetic divide if you would — which helps to enforce the viral apartheid.

Go to any gay chat site, and you will find advertisements reading something like this (an actual ad from Craigslist): “GWM seeking DDF GWM for fun, friendship and more. Clean here, UB2.” Now, of course, there is an inherent racism in such a post, but there is also an insidious enforcement of viral apartheid.

Let’s deconstruct this:

GWM=Gay White Male.
DDF=Drug and Disease Free.

First, the implication is that gay black men are somehow incapable of being drug and disease free. Secondly, there is an implication that those who use drugs are automatically diseased. While the explosion of Tina abuse in our community is certainly fueling the expanding boundaries of the epidemic, it is by no means the only reason. Also inherent in this DDF concept is the idea that all disease is covered.

To deconstruct this properly I turn first to the definition of “disease.”

dis·ease
1 obsolete : trouble
2: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms: sickness, malady: a harmful development (as in a social institution)

So in order for a person to have a disease, it must impair normal functioning and typically manifest by signs and symptoms.

Yes, I am HIV infected. However, my T-cells are relatively high and my viral load is undetectable. My normal functions are not impaired. There are no signs and symptoms. So am I diseased, per se? The author of this post would say I am, as the post is designed to specifically isolate HIV+ men from replying. The author of the post most certainly did not have third stage syphilis in mind, or bipolar disorder, or manic depression, or Addison’s Disease. The Disease Free implication is coded for HIV. Sure the post author might say, “No, no, no. I meant all disease including HIV. You know the Clap, herpes and HPV.” But that is self protection from being called out from his own prejudices. The code is designed to weed out the HIV positive.

It is the second reference to HIV that is most disturbing to me.

“Clean here, UB2.”

Again from our friends at the dictionary:

clean
1 a: free from dirt or pollution changed to clean clothes clean solar energy b: free from contamination or disease a clean wound c: free or relatively free from radioactivity a clean atomic explosion
2 a: unadulterated, pure the clean thrill of one’s first flight b: of a precious stone : having no interior flaws visible c: free from growth that hinders tillage clean farmland
3 a: free from moral corruption or sinister connections of any kind a candidate with a clean record ; also : free from violations a clean driving record b: free from offensive treatment of sexual subjects and from the use of obscenity a clean joke c: observing the rules : fair a clean fight
4: ceremonially or spiritually pure and all who are clean may eat flesh — Leviticus 7:19 (Revised Standard Version)
5 a: thorough, complete a clean break with the past b: deftly executed : skillful clean ballet technique c: hit beyond the reach of an opponent a clean single to center
6 a: relatively free from error or blemish : clear ; specifically : legible clean copy b: unencumbered clean bill of sale
7 a: characterized by clarity and precision : trim a clean prose style architecture with clean almost austere lines b: even,smooth a clean edge a sharp blow causing a clean break c: free from impedances to smooth flow (as of water or air) a clean airplane a ship with a clean bottom
8 a: empty the ship returned with a clean hold b: free from drug addiction has been clean for six months c slang : having no contraband (as weapons or drugs) in one’s possession
9: habitually neat

Here our friendly poster goes beyond the disease reference and brings in a series of judgments on the person. Not only is a person who is clean free from “contamination or disease,” being “clean” also means free of “moral corruption or sinister connections of any kind.” The person is also a “rule follower” who is “ceremonially or spiritually pure.” This one word is a virtual land mine of stigma.

The implication here is that a person who is infected with HIV is some how morally and/or spiritually less than the author of the post. Was this a conscious claim in the mind of the author. Most likely not. But it brings out the clear statement that being positive is an indication of a moral deficiency. The implication is — and this has been said directly to me — as an HIV positive you are a whore, reckless, don’t care about your life, deserved it or some other judgment made based on the infection, not on the facts surrounding the infection.

The author of the post is saying, in as clear of language as English allows, “I am better than you because I am not infected with HIV. That disease, above all others, places you in a second class citizenry and makes you the object of derision, harassment and scorn. You did something to earn that category and therefore you accept all the responsibilities of that categorization.”

The irony is that that the code is designed to enforce silence on HIV, not the prevention of or protection from infection. As I read such posts, I am forced each time to not only be reminded of my second class placement in an already oppressed community, but also to make a decision between honesty and intimacy. And we wonder why a recent study found that 45 percent of people with HIV do not disclose their status to potential sexual partners. Who would when disclosure is a risk of not only rejection, but judgment?

The reality is, we have a responsibility to step back. Yes, HIV is scary, but so is herpes, HPV, the clap, syphilis and other infections we might get from sexual intimacy. But does this enforced silence for those infected with HIV really make anyone safer? I have had men tell me, when I speak to them in chat rooms, that they don’t date HIV positive men as a prevention strategy. The problem is, I know those same men have been with other men who know they are HIV positive but did not tell them. So how did that prevention strategy work out? Silence is not golden, but it sure can get you laid in the gay men’s community.

So how do we overcome this fear?

First, get the facts. I can’t tell you how many people in the men’s community I have had to give basic HIV 101 lessons. Secondly, take some responsibility for yourself. If you don’t want to get HIV, and it is a concern for you, then don’t presume every man who says he is negative is negative. And while you are at, don’t presume you are negative. Have you been tested in the last six months? And finally, even if they hand you a test result from yesterday that says their name and that they are HIV negative, treat them as though they are positive. Practice safer sex.

Let’s be honest here, being poz sucks. But being poz and being ostracized from the community because of it sucks more. Just because a person has HIV, does not mean you cannot have sex with him. If you are practicing safer sex, being with an openly poz man is as safe as being with some one who says they are negative. In fact, it is probably safer, because you both will take actions to minimize even more potential risk of transmission. It is important to know that the science of understanding HIV has come a long way — and you have a responsibility to know about it and understand it. Knowing a positive partner’s T-cells and viral loads are exceptionally important in understanding potential risk exposures.

Next Thursday: Ideals of Male Beauty. Click here or bookmark this link to keep up with other “Fessing Up” commentaries.

Previous Installments:
1. Substance Abuse
2. Promiscuity and Unsafe Sex
3. HIV/AIDS