Once again, what is the AIDS Inc / safer-sex educator solution to this problem of "reckless transmission?"

The condom.

And mistrust.

That's their solution to everything regarding HIV and MSM (men who have sex with men).

MSM are told to use a condom "every time you have sex ... every time" -- because there's no way you can know whether your partner is poz or not -- no matter what he says.

In other words, in the safer-sex educators' view of the world, you cannot and SHOULD NOT trust anyone -- including your lover.

That's why President Museveni said, correcty, that the condom is about "institutionalized mistrust."

Can a relationship with that sort of mistrust at its erotic center survive?

Of course not.

Relationships are about trust.

You trust your lover.

That's why what the Brit buttboy did was so heinous.

Not only did he infect his "lover," thus stealing his health and perhaps his life, he also stole his trust.

That's what a con man does.

Con artists will tell you that in a con game, what's really stolen is the victim's trust.

Once you have the victim's trust, you can take everything else.

That's what the Brit buttboy did.

He stole his "lover's" trust, and then his health, and possibly his life.

Yet the ASOs and safer-sex educators say he musn't be prosecuted.

They're wrong.

Just as we prosecute murderers and thieves because our citizens must be secure in their lives and property, so we prosecute con men -- not just because they steal, but because society cannot function without trust.

The world which the safer-sex educators seek to create is one in which there would be no punishment for anyone affected by HIV, no matter what they did -- and no trust.

And, I submit, no true joy in sex.

Some months ago I wrote an article about the Orwellian aspects of analist thought: the constant lies and doublethink.

But there's another Orwellian apsect of analism -- and that's the sex itself.

This is a passage from Orwell's 1984 regarding the totalitarian regime's attitude toward sex:

The aim of the party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. ... Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema.

Sound extreme?

"prevent men and women [and men and men] from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control"

Can a relationship based on a condom -- that is, distrust -- be loyal?

"Its purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act."

Can a sexual act based on a condom be pleasurable?

The condom destroys the top's pleasure, while the bottom's pleasure is non-existent to begin with.

"Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema."

Anal and enemas -- no stretch there.

Now add a condom.

If you're the top, you have to stop in the middle of your ardor to put on the condom -- which requires six separate steps -- and lube the bottom's butthole -- usually with your finger.

Then you have to push your penis past the bottom's anal sphincter into his feces-filled hole and try to maintain your erection so you can "fuck" him.

It would be easier to give him an enema -- and both the pleasure and disgust levels would be the same.

"A slightly disgusting minor operation" -- that's a great description of anal, and I doubt the comparison to an enema was accidental on Orwell's part.

He was making an implicit comparison between the joy of genital sex and the artificiality, pain, and shit of anal.

When I re-read my Brit buttboy post, at first I thought it was a bit over the top.

But when I reflect on what the UK "safer-sex" people are saying -- I know that what I said was right.

If it were up to the "safer-sex" boys, there'd be NO punishment for crimes committed using HIV as the weapon.

That's insane.

It's literally a license to kill.

The choice is clear:

There's analism.

The analists, aided and abetted by AIDS Inc, have built a culture of "institutionalized mistrust."

Institutionalized mistrust.

Mistrust which the institutions of AIDS Inc. act to protect and promote.

But there's another model.

Museveni referred to "optimal relationships based on love and trust."

We call that

A sexually and emotionally exclusive dyadic warrior bond which is stand-by-your-man, til death-us-do-part faithful.

Why Heroic?

Because it's how Heroes behave in warrior epics from Gilgamesh to the Iliad to David and Jonathan to the Celtic Tain.

And because it celebrates masculine men who unite through the act of phallic sex.

Thus, one of our Alliance by-words: phallus, fidelity, masculinity.

For an examination of the cross-cultural, historical, and mythic record reveals that traditionally, the love of man for man has focused on phallus, fidelity, and masculinity, and that such love, passionate and exclusive, has for millenia been recognized as one of the highest expressions of the human spirit.

"Optimal relationships based on love and trust."

That is exactly what the Frot Movement, by putting forward a mutually genital and mutually masculine act coupled with Fidelity, promotes.

The analists, aided and abetted by AIDS Inc, have built a culture of disease and mistrust.

We're building a culture based on love and trust, phallus and fidelity, and respect for the inherent value of every human life.

For we understand, in the words of the prayer book, that

There is in man, created in the image of God, a Divine spark: each human life, therefore, is sacred and of infinite worth.

Trust or mistrust?

ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE WHICH WILL PREVAIL.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

I've talked before of how analism, like the religious right, pays lip service to one thing while pushing another.

For example, as I discussed in the Warrior Christendom message thread, masculinity.

Go to any gay male dating / hook-up site, and you'll see guys "looking for a masculine man."

But what are they seeking to do with that man?

Engage in an act which degrades and destroys manhood.

What's the ideology behind that act?

That masculinity is evil, and that it's good for a man to be effeminized by being penetrated anally, because so doing robs him of his "masculine privilege."

Essential to that ideology -- not incidental but essential -- is the dichotomy between "gay men" and "straight men."

"Straight men" are masculine and masculinity is oppressive and bad.

"Gay men" have, through penetration, lost their masculine edge, and are thus liberated.

That's the ideology.

What does that mean for men, whether gay-identified or straight-identified or just plain bi, who are masculine and who cherish their masculinity?

It means their place in the world -- as Robert Loring points out, both in the churches and in the larger society -- is being destroyed.

When it comes to the issue of trust, there's yet another analist irony.

A number of studies, beginning with the 1997 UCSF Qualitative Interview Study II (QIS II), which I reported on in Multipartnered Pansexualism or Heroic love, right down to a 2006 study out of Australia, says that men engage in anal because they're looking for intimacy.

And they add, condoms destroy intimacy.

This is from the "Executive Summary" of QIS II:

Men in QIS II frequently described anal sex, and particularly anal sex without condoms, as a means to affirm their gay identity, experience intimacy, and feel a broader social and cultural connection.

Here's a recent study by someone named Slavin out of Australia as reported in The Age:

Slavin's study found gay men were preferring sex without condoms for the same reasons as many hetereosexuals -- intimacy and sensation. Engaging in unprotected sex to build trust and intimacy in a budding relationship led some men in Slavin's study to infection.

[emphasis mine]

So:

QIS, 1997: "anal sex without condoms [is] a means to affirm gay identity, experience intimacy, and feel a broader social and cultural connection"

Slavin, 2006: "gay men were preferring sex without condoms for the same reasons as many hetereosexuals -- intimacy and sensation. Engaging in unprotected sex to build trust and intimacy in a budding relationship led some men in Slavin's study to infection."

In other words, AIDS Inc has known not for one year, or two, or five, but at least nine -- and I'd be certain far longer -- that there's a link between condomless anal and the desire for intimacy AND trust.

To which I say, no kidding.

Yet clearly, condoms destroy both intimacy and trust.

AIDS Inc. doesn't care.

It keeps pushing condoms and in so doing increases the level of anomie and dysfunction in the gay male community.

Because the condom is "institutionalized mistrust."

Once again, however, AIDS Inc doesn't care.

Because it doesn't have another solution.

Other than the logical one:

That since there's no safe way for men to have the skin-on-skin intimacy and trust they need through anal --

we must present them with another form of skin-on-skin intimacy which is not only TRULY intimate, but HIV SAFE, mutually genital, and exaltive of masculinity.

And that, AIDS Inc resolutely refuses to do.

AIDS Inc WOULD RATHER MEN DIE OF ANALLY-VECTORED DISEASES THAN DISCUSS A NON-ANAL ALTERNATIVE.

NO MATTER HOW PLEASURABLE, MASCULINE, AND UNIQUELY GAY IT MIGHT BE.

If that doesn't anger you -- it should.

I said in the Brit buttboy post that these are not AIDS activists.

They're ANAL activists.

They are putting the protection and indeed promotion of anal ahead of the lives of gay men.

It's not AIDS Inc.

It's ANAL Inc.

And it has a big appetite.

How much money do you think Mr Slavin in Australia spent to duplicate the findings of QIS II?

Here's a little item from Oregon:

Corvallis Gazette Times Sat, 11 Mar 2006

Factors influencing risky sexual behaviors among young men and women at increased risk for HIV infection are the focus of a five-year, $2-million study headed by an Oregon State University public health researcher.

$2,000,000.

Big bucks boys.

Yet we know, don't we, what the "factors influencing risky sexual behaviors among young men" are: a need for intimacy and trust.

QIS told us; as did Slavin.

Why spend another $2 million?

And how many more studies just like this one and costing as much or more are being done all over the world?

Guys, this is a racket.

Can't you recognize one when you see one?

And when will you find the courage to fight these rackets and cons which are destroying your lives?

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

AIDS treatment linked to severe brain damage

In an emerging number of cases, according to a new report, HAART (highly active antiretrovial therapy) -- the combination drug therapy which, we're told, has made HIV / AIDS a "manageable illness" -- has been linked to brain damage.

A consequence, ironically, of what the authors call "antiretroviral-associated immune restoration."

This is a very technical article, and for that reason I'm just posting the summary here with a link to the main article for those interested.

The point is however that despite analist claims that among gay men in America, the epidemic is essentially over, HIV / AIDS remains a difficult disease to treat, there is no cure and no vaccine in sight, and the treatments themselves are proving to have many very dangerous side-effects.

Wednesday, 29 March 2006

An Emerging Severe Leukoencephalopathy: is It Due to HIV Disease or Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy?

By Rackstraw, Simon; Meadway, Jeanette; Bingham, James; Al-Sarraj, Safa; Everall, Ian

Summary: We report an individual who had HIV-associated dementia, but a good clinical response to antiretroviral therapy, with a rising CD4 count and undetectable viral load. A severe leukoencephalopathy was noted at postmortem; however, no HIV immunopositive cells were found in the brain, suggesting that this new severe leukoencephalopathy is associated with immune reconstitution.

Keywords: HIV, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS dementia complex, encephalitis

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Once again, HIV infection is not a walk in the park.

And anal penetration, even with a condom, is not safe.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.