Fucking Like Bunnies

[+ Lucky]

The San Francisco Chroncile has long had a fascination with their view of gay men as wildly sexually promiscuous. Yhey frequently run articles from the hysterical wing of the Health Department on how nasty we are. The latest is a three-piece story on crystal meth use. The Chronicle contends that it is epidemic in the gay community and directly responsible for a serious increase in HIV transmission. As we know here, barebacking is indeed becoming more popular. Even if the Chronicle articles center on the truth, one has to question how much "shock value" they like to add to their stories. To sell newspapers? To fuel homophobia? I dunno.

Do others feel that crystal is a strong scourge to our community? If so, what do you recommend the general public and the media do about it?

[Casteran]

While I don't read the Chronicle and don't live anywhere near SF, it continues to amaze me how the media buckets the gay community as promiscuous, drug crazed, circuit party wild, HIV spreading, "Queer as Folk" wannabee's. As a gay male out for more than 20 years - I am not and have never been promiscuous, done drugs twice in my life, never been to a circuit party, not spreading HIV (HiV- for the record) and don't even watch QAF. So can someone tell me why we get stereotyped so much? Because of the media and how they portray a "part" of our community. Very sad indeed. What to do about it? Keep being who we are and embracing our diversity, fu.. those that don't like it.

[VaHawk]

Well, I can't imagine a more difficult area than San Francisco to promote homophobia, so I doubt that would be the Chronicle's aim. I personally feel that crystal meth use is abundant in certain areas of the gay scene, just like drugs always have been, and I doubt anything the general public or media says/does will ever change that. And I also believe that drugs, especially combined with alcohol definitely leads to promiscuous, unsafe sexual practices.

[dick_nyc]

For the same reason that blacks are treated as druggy, criminal, hip hop dummies. The most visible to the public are the ones who are crystal meth, outrageous gays who are not like most of the gays in the country. The ones who live quiet lives and do their jobs whatever they are and pay their bills and have dinner with friends and do all the regular things are not visible as being gay and so are not treated that way.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Were there any passages in particular that you thought sensationalized the problem? (The last article, by the way, was not about gay tweakers but a teenage girl in recovery from meth abuse.) I don't remember reading anything that I haven't seen already in the Bay Area Reporter or that didn't ring true. I do think meth is a pretty serious problem in the gay community here and elsewhere, and that it's one of the harder drugs to exaggerate about when it comes to talking about how destructive it can be. This isn't to say that everyone or even necessarily most people who've used it get addicted, but almost everybody I've talked to here about it knows at least a few people who have royally fucked up their lives due to crystal meth use. And the only HIV-positive people I know in their twenties were doing Tina (meth) and barebacking. I've also heard through the grapevine that the people who are getting the drug-resistant staph infection are tweakers and/or poz guys. (I know I'm speaking anecdotally, and I can't vouch for any DPH numbers and am open to the suggestion that they might tend to exaggerate the depth and scope of the problem.)

 

For bonus points, meth labs are the second biggest polluter in California (the chemicals that go into it are extremely toxic and tend to get poured down wells)! One of the more unfortunate results, IMO, of "Reefer Madness" and other hysterical drug scares it that they tend to make it harder for people to grasp when something truly scary is out there.

 

As for the larger issue of media coverage of gays, having lived in many parts of the country I think the Chronicle tends (rightly) to assume a comparatively high level of sophistication on the part of its audience on gay issues and doesn't need to patronize them or present only "positive images." It's only right, in my mind, to acknowledge that there is a lot more promiscuity among gay men -- I certainly don't think it's anything to apologize for -- and let's face it, the decision to be promiscuous, like the decision to be monogamous, carries its own set of rewards, consequences and responsibilities. And in this case, people need to know that combining meth with sleeping around is a recipe for spreading disease. The gay newspapers shouldn't have to carry all the water when it comes to getting the word out.

[+ Axiom2001]

Precisely, VaHawk-- when I read the intro thread, I said to myself-- the SF Chronicle is not homophobic; it's just the opposite being SF's only mainstream paper that serves the citizenry in No Cal.

Presumably, the reporter wrote what is happening at present among some of the gays in this city as well as others-- there is a rise in STDs now, far too many of our brethern have begun to be rather lax in their behavior... I shall not repeat what's in the article. It goes beyond steretyping... Much of the same information has also been reported in the gay paper--BAY AREA REPORTER to awaken those whose activities have been on the careless side.

[Guest gentle guy]

Devon, as usual, makes sense.

 

I also speak anecdotally, but I see a significant relationship between crystal and unsafe sex and HIV/STD. I only know a few guys who became poz in the past few years, but every one of them became infected while tweaking.

 

I have no doubt that a similar pattern exists in the straight community.

[+ Lucky]

The San Francisco Chronicle sees its readership as the population of the Greater Bay Area, therefore it does not feel as beholden to the roughly half-million people who actually live in SF. The Chronicle is the only newspaper to choose from so they don't have to. My perspective from over 20 years of reading the paper is that they never miss an opportunity to show how promiscuous gays are. The latest article was the featured Sunday piece, accompanied by a photo of a scantily clad man dancing in a bar. (I did only read the online version, but as the day went along and new stories developed, they maintained this story as the lead.) The second article in the series featured a pathetic crystal addict who was also gay.

There are, I concede, individuals at the Chron who are not as antagonistic to gays, and some actually pro-gay. But note how, every year after the gay-pride-parade, the Chron posts the most outrageous picture they can rather than one that represents the mainstream gay community.

As for SF and homophobia, it is truly the home where gays can be freer than others, but do not think that homophobia is not alive and well in the greater Bay area. Even in SF, the most conservative cops can rise to the top of the police department.

[woodlawn]

>My perspective from over 20 years of

>reading the paper is that they never miss an opportunity to

>show how promiscuous gays are.

 

I don't know whether this was intentional, but the way you've constructed that sentence indicates you agree gays are promiscuous and are complaining only because this paper reports on it. Didn't you recently complain about another article in the same paper that focused on the upsurge in some STD (syphillis?) among gay men? Does a newspaper really need to apologize for telling the truth?

 

Should a paper limit the number of articles it publishes that mention black drug dealers or Jewish bankers in order to avoid reinforcing stereotypes?

 

 

>the Chron posts the

>most outrageous picture they can rather than one that

>represents the mainstream gay community.

 

And which picture would be the one that represents the mainstream gay community?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>The San Francisco Chronicle sees its readership as the

>population of the Greater Bay Area, therefore it does not feel

>as beholden to the roughly half-million people who actually

>live in SF. The Chronicle is the only newspaper to choose from

>so they don't have to.

 

Isn't the Mercury-News now competing for readership all over the Bay Area (which is why they stopped calling themselves the San Jose Mercury-News)?

 

> The latest article was the

>featured Sunday piece, accompanied by a photo of a scantily

>clad man dancing in a bar.

 

Well, that's as representative a snapshot from gay bars as I can think of. People don't usually go in a coat and tie. What if they'd shown a pic of the dancefloor? Then you'd have seen HUNDREDS of sweating, scantily clad gay men dancing close.

 

> The second article in

>the series featured a pathetic crystal addict who was also

>gay.

 

But it's hard to think how a story about a crystal addict WOULDN'T come across as pathetic.

 

>But note how,

>every year after the gay-pride-parade, the Chron posts the

>most outrageous picture they can rather than one that

>represents the mainstream gay community.

 

I think we need to retire this complaint. In 2003, especially in the Bay Area, it is not as though the only time people see images of gay men is the one day of the year when the Chron runs a photo of drag queens and/or leather daddies at Pride. (By contrast, it's practically the only chance drag queens and leather daddies get to be in the paper.) If we have to purge every image or story of undercurrents that might reinforce (or merely coincide with) a stereotype we're going to create a picture that's even more distorted. Besides, at parades people, including photographers, notice the eye-catching stuff. The Chron has run plenty of heartwarming articles about PFLAG moms and such, but they'd make for a less interesting photograph than a more flamboyant float.

[+ Lucky]

Devon, your responses are quite intelligent and counter my points well. We do have a different perspective. I don't think, btw, that the Mercury-News is about to overshadow the Chronicle in influence outside of San Jose, but of course I could be wrong. One thing you don't address, however, is the history of the Chronicle editorial posturing to the detriment of gays. That colors my perspective a great deal.

Woodie, yes, I did. It was an example of the Chronicle's attempts to make people think negatively toward gays and an attempt to diminish gay political standing. This is their thing however subtle they try to be. As for promiscuity, perphaps I worded it the way I thought. There is an element of promiscuity in the gay community. But I don't think that segment are the only ones fucking like bunnies. The Chronicle would have you believe that we are as a group perpetuating a health crisis and I do think that a segment of us are. But then, there are a lot of people fucking and making unwanted babies. That cost to society is immense. When they do get their Chronicle feature? They won't, because it wouldn't be politically correct.

[woodlawn]

>Woodie, yes, I did. It was an example of the Chronicle's

>attempts to make people think negatively toward gays and an

>attempt to diminish gay political standing. This is their

>thing however subtle they try to be.

 

So long as they report the truth, I can't criticize them. If gay guys are doing things that reflect negatively on all of us and the Chronicle reports that, too bad. It's the fault of the people who make the news not the fault of the people who report it.

 

 

>As for promiscuity,

>perphaps I worded it the way I thought. There is an element of

>promiscuity in the gay community. But I don't think that

>segment are the only ones fucking like bunnies. The Chronicle

>would have you believe that we are as a group perpetuating a

>health crisis and I do think that a segment of us are. But

>then, there are a lot of people fucking and making unwanted

>babies. That cost to society is immense. When they do get

>their Chronicle feature? They won't, because it wouldn't be

>politically correct.

 

You talk as if there is no difference between the cost to the community of bringing additional children into the world and the cost of treating additional cases of a sexually transmitted disease. A lot of people, including me, would say that there are positive aspects to bringing additional children into the world. You can't say that about additional cases of syphillis.

[+ Lucky]

I am talking about children that are unwanted and uncared for. As for newspapers, I suppose that the Chronicle has no obligation to be fair...

How come you let me slide on that picture question?

[+ deej]

>The San Francisco Chroncile has long had a fascination with

>their view of gay men as wildly sexually promiscuous.

 

You mean like this?

 

http://www.badboyspoolparty.com/2003/PalmSprings03/Photos/harrybitsch/sunday/DSC00484.JPG

 

Or this?

 

http://www.badboyspoolparty.com/2003/PalmSprings03/Photos/harrybitsch/sunday/DSC00468.JPG

 

We WILL pretty much get it on at the drop of a hat. (Or trousers. ;-)) This may have been a "porn event" (in a public venue) last weekend but there's exactly ONE pornstar in that first picture, and the 2nd picture is all civilians.

 

Is it a sterotype? SURE! Does it really exist? Obviously. Does any sterotype EVER depict all of the group it's applied to? No.

 

(I really only wanted the chance to show y'all some skin. ;-))

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>One thing you don't address, however, is the

>history of the Chronicle editorial posturing to the detriment

>of gays.

 

Well, if you've been reading the paper twenty years that's nearly four times as long as I have. But in the past five-and-a-half years I can't remember any editorial positions the Chronicle has taken against gay rights, or that defamed gays as a group, though I could have missed it. And I guess my perception is that the coverage of gays is varied, that different subcultures in the community do get reported on and that we are more or less treated as a diverse group.

Of course, we're both talking about our (vague) impressions, and neither one of us is probably prepared to dig up a trove of old archives to make our case. ;-)

 

I'm also coming at it from the perspective of having lived in other parts of the country where the daily newspapers gave less coverage to gay issues, both in terms of depth and variety, and showed less familiarity with the ins and outs of the subcultures they were reporting on. That doesn't mean we shouldn't want to keep raising the bar, but I'm still confused about what you think the shortcomings of their current reporting are, especially with regard to this article. If you're reporting on meth use and its link to HIV and STD rates, it's hard to see how promiscuity and barebacking could fail to come up.

 

>But then, there are a lot of people fucking and making unwanted

>babies. That cost to society is immense. When they do get

>their Chronicle feature? They won't, because it wouldn't be

>politically correct.

 

I can't believe the Chroncile has never done a feature on unwanted pregancies. Never? In the last twenty YEARS?

 

If anything, I'm inclined to wonder what took them so long. Before I first moved here five and a half years ago I heard that meth was an epidemic problem out here. It seems like you could criticize the Chronicle from the other direction -- that they stalled on really reporting on the problem because it was so concentrated in the gay community.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Here's a link to the article:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/04/MN281636.DTL

[+ Lucky]

Seriously, deej, you don't know the difference between sucking and fucking??!!

 

Devon, back when gay power was a dream and Harvey Milk one of its few promoters, I think the Chronicle saw us as a threat to the power structure of the city and it was reflected in the editorial positions they took. The "progress" they have shown may well outdo other newspapers, but I maintain that it is begrudging and given only as necessary to maintain their credibility in a liberal community. They seem to want their suburban readers to understand that they don't buy into this too deeply. I see their continuing fascination with gay sex articles as a means of letting the greater community see us in a negative light, as people driven more by hormones than ideas.

You are right, I am not interested in digging into the archives. My post here has been more about my impressions over the years and the difficulty gays had in getting anywhere with this newspaper until AIDS came along. And then, of course, they wanted to make it clear that we were victims of our promiscuity rather than an unforeseen epidemic.

But, obviously, I still read them long after I have moved away. So I guess there is something there for me, maybe!

[+ deej]

>Seriously, deej, you don't know the difference between

>sucking and fucking??!!

 

Yeah, actually I do. I'm not releasing the pictures from Michael's room. }( That sling wasn't empty for more than a few minutes at a time all afternoon.

[woodlawn]

>I am talking about children that are unwanted and uncared

>for.

 

Even children who start life in that way can make a great contribution later. I can't think of anything positive that can come from spreading STDs, can you?

 

>As for newspapers, I suppose that the Chronicle has no

>obligation to be fair...

 

I think a paper's only obligation is to report the truth. The truth is that many in the gay community have problems with STDs and with drugs. If you are concerned that these problems damage the political standing of gays, why not address your complaints to the people who are causing the problems rather than those who are merely reporting on them?

 

>How come you let me slide on that picture question?

 

Because I don't know how to answer that question either.

[Guest Ant415]

Even though I live in the bay area, I missed the articles in the Chron. Also, one of the networks did a recent piece on meth.

 

A few years ago I would have been down on any media coverage of drug use. I never thought the "war on drugs" or any Reaganeque mantras were the least bit effective. Does anyone remember the silly piece with eggs in a frying pan " This is your brain on drugs"?

 

However, after a couple of years of meth use, and seeing what it has done to my life and people around me, I am all for any media coverage that can bring attention to meth use. Meth use seems to cross most all classifications of people.... white/blue collar, rich, poor, white, black, gay, and straight.

 

However, I think the drug has a special appeal to the gay male. The slight high notwithstanding, add an extreme focus on sex, you have a something that more gay men will try. Explain to a friend that while doing "tina" you got a blowjob for eight hours last night, and you a person that wants to try "tina".

 

The effects of meth use are worse than other recreational drugs. From the inability to respect time, to bad skin, bad teeth, etc., meth is extremely addictive. Some users claim they use once in a great while. However, for most, this will escalate to a problem level. Only a very strong willed person can resist using more.

 

IMHO, meth is a scourge in the gay community (at least in SF and LA). At the minimum you loose track of time, get lost on a subway, and miss a coffee date. At the worst, you loose your job.

[+ Lucky]

Sorry to hear of your affliction with tina. I hope you are getting help. After I posted this thread I learned that an acquaintance of mine is severely into this drug as well.

Over the years, I can see where several appointments were screwed up because of drug use. Most of my friends fortunately have stopped using drugs. Good luck to you.