Straight Allies: The Importance and the Realities

via HuffPost Gay Voices, Jack Antonoff

2012 is a strange time in the fight to end inequality. On paper we are closer than ever before, and although this is true, our country is also becoming more and more polarized as a byproduct of this undeniable progress.

While it is important to celebrate each victory large or small, there is obviously still a great struggle ahead. Our roles as straight allies of LGBTQ Americans are becoming not only clearer but increasingly vital as we go further down the road toward change.

We have reached a moment in which wavering apathy is simply a non-option, as it is an endorsement in itself of the treatment of LGBTQ Americans as second-class citizens. As straight allies, we have to realize that the time is now to take a critical look at ourselves and to question how and where we are allowing hate to exist and, therefore, to breed.

A large part of being an ally is establishing ourselves within our social and professional circles as people who will not tolerate homophobia in any form or under any circumstance.

This is also, in many ways, the hardest part. It goes without saying that bringing up weighty issues can be awkward in social situations -- even more so, standing up to a colleague or a friend.

My experience has led me to believe that people are excessively uncomfortable and often upset when homophobia is pointed out in social settings.

I can't even begin to count the amount of times I have been called a "buzzkill" or, worse, pre-warned to keep my mouth shut before entering a dinner: "So-and-so's parents are super religious, so don't bring up the gay rights stuff."

That felt seriously dark even to write, but nonetheless, these are actual words that have been said to me, and I believe they reveal a great deal -- namely that we as a culture place social comfort over right and wrong.

We would rather let hate speak linger among us than endure that awkward moment when someone points out that something is simply not acceptable. It is that same part of the brain that can't locate the words to ask a cab driver flying down an avenue at the speed of light to just slow down.

Social paralysis is strong and stands firmly in the way of change on the ground level. As allies, we have to prepare ourselves to step into the fire when necessary, even -- and especially -- when said fire is merely a still-lit cigarette tossed carelessly onto the street.

Of course, the majority of us would speak up in the face of outrageous bigotry, but do we speak up in a social situation when someone casually refers to something as "gay"? If we don't, we are standing with the homophobes whom we are quietly fighting.

Saying nothing is saying that you are someone who is OK with hate, while saying anything establishes you as an entity that will not accept it in any form. Awkward? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.

Homophobia is not only rampant; it is tolerated, and those of us who intend to speak up in its ugly presence are often looked upon like oppositional teenagers just trying to get a reaction. However frustrating it can be, these are the scenarios in which we have a real opportunity to make a difference.

Unlike racism, the verdict on homophobia's social acceptability is still out. Hate mongers will always exist; we can't change that. We do, however, have the power to back them into corners and illuminate their ignorance, making them as irrelevant as possible.

As we have seen with racism, the more we as a culture choose to cease to tolerate it, the less visible it becomes, and therefore, its influence is monumentally decreased. As a result, life becomes better for those oppressed, laws change more rapidly, and equality is achieved sooner.

You can bet that the more we make a scene in the presence of homophobia, however minor it may seem, the more progress we will make toward its greater silencing.

Personally, this is something I encounter constantly in the music industry. Being a heterosexual male in a band comes with a certain misogynistic stereotype that, in effect, leads people to assume that they can safely use offensive terminology that perhaps they wouldn't in front of, say, a teacher.

This leads me to another vital role of any ally: recognizing the specific power we each have based on who we are and what we do.

There is no question that the issue of LGBTQ inequality has a stigma of being a "gay issue" and not the human rights issue that it is. With this comes an assumption that heterosexual America doesn't have to care, because, well, it's not their problem (or as stated above, "they didn't come for me").

I personally believe that this way of thinking is one of the most threatening to human equality, and that "straight apathy" is a major roadblock in the fight towards faster change.

The non-LGBTQ community has a distinct power -- whether or not they want it -- to stand up on behalf of our oppressed fellow human beings, and it seems that the straight community has, to date, failed our LGBTQ citizens by not fully exercising that power.

To support quietly from the sidelines while those oppressed stand on the battlefield is to ensure that change will come at a glacial pace.


Read the rest

FAQ: Frequently Asked of Queers

via HuffPost Gay Voices, by Khalid El Khatib

"Shit ____ Say" videos have replaced planking as the latest Internet meme, including videos on "Shit Gay Guys Say" and "Shit Girls Say to Gay Guys".

Their funny observations have me thinking about the "serious" questions I get from straight people, both open-minded friends and idiots -- questions that are almost exclusively a function of my being gay.

The FAQ below contains the questions I most commonly get, but I know others are out there. What am I missing, readers?

"Who pays on dates?"

This is a commonly asked question with an uninteresting answer. During dating, the check is typically split. There are specific situations and sects of the community providing exceptions -- "sugar daddies" exist, and starving artists have appetites, despite what the physiques of Broadway extras lead you to believe.

Once you're in a relationship, things work as you'd imagine: checks are split unless there's huge income disparity.

I can't recount a relationship I've had where I ate for free. The only time a gay man goes into a date with a meal ticket is when it's with a high-profile scientologist -- they're loaded.

"When did you know you were gay?"

People ask how and where "it" starts, especially curious about whether it starts as a spark or like an atomic explosion, all glitter and spray tan, no radiation.

After years of reflection, I say there's something religious about the way I discovered my sexuality. To clarify: the Tammy Faye type of religion involving wild theatrics, a semblance of spiritual mystery, and the constant question of whether or not who I am would save my soul or condemn it.

Ultimately, coming of age is first about what you discover, and then about the when -- gay men float in stages of figuring things out for variable periods of time.

Phase one occurs as the terrifying reality that you're different sinks in. There are many ways to reconcile this reality -- shut it away, warp it with drugs and alcohol, dance toward it slowly (secretly DVRing Glee), or give in.

Phase two revolves around victory or defeat, depending on your approach. Just as you grow excited about being different -- special -- you realize you're the same as many others.

Either you're crushed because your courage to come out manifests itself as self-importance (and your coming-out story is never going to get you that book deal), or you're thrilled to have hundreds of (broad) shoulders to cry on.

Once I told a bigot about my belief that coming to terms with one's sexuality is spiritual and involves an evolution that's required for a fully developed sense of self.

He responded that I need more faith. I rattled George Michael back ("a-faith-a-faith"), and that's exactly when I knew my transformation was complete.

"Have you ever been with a girl?"

This question is as absurd to me as when people ask if, given that I'm half Palestinian, I've ever dated an Israeli.

It's not absurd just because the question implies that the experience is unnatural, but because it's personal. Gay men: next time someone asks you this question, I implore you to raise your voice and speak with hand gestures (even if it's not typical).

Make the asker feel uncomfortable about their comfort in addressing you as a case study.

I never felt a need to ask any of my six straight college roommates if they've been with guys, and I can't imagine it's a question they need talking points around like us.

"Why are gay men so fit?"

First, we're not. America is one of the most obese nations in the world, and no community is immune to it (you're welcome, Mrs. Obama!).

Alas, this isn't a diatribe on male body image and the media; I won't go on about how society reinforces gay stereotypes.

Further, I don't have stats on "gay BMI" versus "straight BMI." I can only speak anecdotally as a gay man living in New York who occasionally attends parties hosted at hotels with well-lit pools...

It's true: there exists a bevy of gay men with incredible bodies. There's no one reason for it. My gay uncle recently told me he hasn't had ice cream in 10 years, and whenever I'm asked if I want crackers or bread with my soup, I'm a little too quick and loud in saying, "Neither!"

On the surface, many of us do swear off potatoes. But digging deeper, using some of what I learned in anthropology, I find it's easy to look at other microcosms of society and transpose them onto the gay community.

I think about the world of finance, where most traders have six-packs and can do the pretzel naked without revealing an ounce of body fat.

They operate in a hyper-competitive reality that is insulated by the long hours they work. Our community is insulated by the bars we attend and the restaurants we brunch at.

We compete with each other constantly, and the stakes are heightened because when you are able to lock down a relationship, it's much easier than in heterosexual relationships to discern whether or not it's a mismatch (imagine this as a neon sign above your head -- I'm speaking from experience).

It's probably this last piece that pushes us toward the gym more than anything else. Neon light is unflattering.

"Why are gay men so fashionable?"

Because we're fit.

"Do you think so-and-so is gay?"

It can always go in multiple directions.

A confident girl with a healthy sense of reality asks: probably -- she's asking for a reason.

An insecure girl asks: probably not -- it's probably that she's insecure.

A straight guy asks: depends, and the key to answering often requires a whole different type of video.


Read the rest

Sexual Liberation and its effect on Gay Monogamy

via Slate, by Amanda Marcotte

Folks of all sexual orientations who are in committed relationships have become more monogamous over time, or that's what a study that was published Family Process found.

There are some hinky things in the reporting on this piece at USA Today. For instance, the only heterosexual couples mentioned are married, but gay couples who are committed but have no formal union were also recorded.

Additionally, the reporting conflates cheating with sex outside of the relationship, even though many couples have an understanding that allows for outside relationships.

In fact, nonmonogamous cultural norms in gay male culture go a long way toward explaining why they're far more likely to have sex outside of a committed relationship than everyone else. 

Still, even with those caveats in place, the results of this survey are stunning. The rate of sex outside of the marriage has dropped for every category of people studied dramatically between 1975 and 2000.

Twenty-eight percent of straight men in 1975 had sex with a woman outside of their marriage, but in 2000, it was only 10 percent. For straight, married women, the rate dropped from 23 percent to 14 percent. For gay men, 83 percent to 59 percent, and for lesbians, 28 percent to 8 percent.

The USA Today article focuses mainly on gay couples and how the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality has a lot to do with increasing rates of monogamy.

There's a lot to think about there, since it is true that cultural acceptance has introduced far more stability into the lives of gay people, and the gay marriage movement has also increased the pressure to value monogamy.


Read the rest

PrEPing for the end of the HIV/AIDS epidemic

 via The Madison Times, By Phil Wilson


We have reached a deciding moment. HIV is 100 percent preventable, including among some of our most at-risk populations: women, gay and bisexual men and young adults.  HIV is also 100 percent diagnosable and in many cases treatable.  Our prevention toolbox is now exploding with options. We now have the all of the tools needed to end the AIDS epidemic!

The promising new PrEP results arrive at a critical time.  Wednesday marked the one-year anniversary of the launch of the historic National HIV/AIDS Strategy, the nation’s first comprehensive roadmap for fighting the epidemic, and one that places the well-being of Black people front and center. We also have health-insurance reform to provide care to the least among us.

But the anniversary and this remarkable string of study results come during an economic downturn that has seen many people lose jobs and others slip through the proverbial “safety net”—losing health insurance, unemployment, and other benefits.  It also comes at the same time many states are cutting funding for HIV/AIDS-prevention programs and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP).

So while we have the toolkit to end the epidemic, the question remains whether we have the political will to invest in using the tools strategically, effectively and compassionately.

Read more.

Drug study sees up to 92-percent cut in HIV risk among gays

via Google, By AFP

[ This article offers a good overview of the data behind studies around pre-exposure prophylaxis]

Volunteers who responded most to a cocktail of antiretroviral drugs in an HIV prevention trial among gay men had a reduced risk of 92 percent of being infected by the AIDS virus, researchers said on Wednesday.

They presented the work as a last-minute, or "late-breaker", contribution to the world forum on AIDS science in Rome.

The research looked at a group of men who took part in a major trial called iPrEx HIV Prevention Study.
iPrEx explored the idea that an uninfected person taking daily AIDS drugs could be shielded from the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a novel approach called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP.

The overall findings, published last November, found that use of a drug called Truvada reduced HIV infections by 44 percent compared with a dummy pill, also called a placebo.

The new study looked at a sub-set of men who had the highest concentrations of the drug in their blood -- a telltale that they had been highly disciplined about taking the pill and that their system had also absorbed it better.

Read more.

iPrEx OLE to Build on News that PrEP Slows HIV Infections Significantly in Both Men Who Have Sex with Men and Heterosexual Women and Men

 via iPrEx News

The iPrEx Open-Label Extension Study (iPrEx OLE), the next phase of the first human study to report efficacy results on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection, has begun at clinical trial sites around the world. Approximately 2,000 men and transgender women who have sex with men are expected to participate in the 72-week iPrEx OLE study. Study sites in the United States and South Africa are enrolling participants now, as other study sites finalize the regulatory approval process.

In PrEP, antiretroviral medications that are usually used to treat HIV are taken by uninfected people to reduce their risk of infection. The iPrEx study found that men and transgender women who have sex with men (MSM) who took a single daily tablet containing the HIV medications emtricitabine and tenofovir (FTC/TDF), known commercially as Truvada®, experienced an average of 44% fewer HIV infections than those who received a placebo (blank pill).

HIV infection rates in the iPrEx study dropped by 90% among those who used PrEP consistently enough to have detectable drug in the body. The HIV risk reduction benefits of PrEP were in addition to those provided by safer sex counseling, condoms, HIV testing and the detection and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. iPrEx study results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in November, 2010.

The news of the start of iPrEx OLE follows the announcements by two other major PrEP studies, Partners PrEP and the CDC study in Botswana, known as TDF2, which demonstrated the safety and efficacy of PrEP in heterosexual women and men.

AdvertisementiPrEx OLE is a continuation of the iPrEx study that will collect additional data on PrEP efficacy, safety and adherence. All HIV-negative participants who took part in the original iPrEx study and who wish to participate will receive FTC/TDF for HIV prevention for 72 weeks through iPrEx OLE. No placebo will be used in the Open Label Extension.

"We are in a critical moment in HIV prevention research," said iPrEx Protocol Chair Robert Grant, MD, MPH of the Gladstone Institutes and the University of California at San Francisco. "iPrEx provided the first proof of an important new method of HIV prevention that can help slow the global toll of 2.6 million new HIV infections each year. Partners PrEP and the TDF2 study have now expanded that finding by demonstrating the effectiveness of PrEP in heterosexual women and men.

Developing and deploying proven HIV prevention methods -- including PrEP, microbicides, vaginal gels, clean needles, medical male circumcision, early treatment, counseling, testing, condoms and suppressive therapy for pregnant women will all be key to slowing the global epidemic."

Read more.