In the United States, at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, mostly gay men were identified as having high risk for this disease. No one really thought about women or heterosexual couples. But eventually women were actually found out to being much more susceptible to HIV/AIDS due to biological conditions and social conditions. Women account for almost half of the 40 million people living with HIV now [3]. The proportion of women’s HIV cases has tripled from 8% to 27% since 1985 [2].

Women face many challenges that can make them more susceptible to HIV. For one, especially in developing countries, some gender inequalities lead to certain behaviors that can lead contracting HIV. In some cultures, women are not free to refuse sex or insist on using condoms. In some of these cultures, men believe they have power over women and do not let them have a say in the situation [2]. Also in some of these cultures, women might not have the same access to education that men have and may not even be aware of the methods of preventions and consequences. The risk of sexual violence can also be extremely high in some places, possibly poorer environments. According to the Higgins article, women that were more likely to get HIV were Black or Latina and lived in very poor sections of the United States [1]. The culture and living conditions plays a major role in disease transmission. Access to education is low in certain areas and can directly result in more people contracting diseases such as HIV.

In addition to the social issues women face, they also have biological differences that make them more susceptible to diseases than men. Women are exposed to infectious fluids longer during sex [1].  Their cells lining of the cervix may also be more vulnerable to HIV [1]. There has been a lot of research proving this. For example, in the Official Journal of the International AIDS Society, there was a article published in 2008 titled, Vulnerability of women in southern Africa to infection with HIV: biological determinants and priority health sector interventions, the determined that bacterial vaginosis is associated with HIV [4]. This is something women have no control over but have to take the necessary precautions. There is no other choice.

People are aware of these issues, and there are many things being done about this. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has placed an emphasis on HIV research [2]. They fund and sponsor research around the world. One example of a type of research is developing a mircobicide gel that women could easily apply and lower the chance of infection. Efforts like these will slowly contribute to the decrease of infections. But it is difficult to lower the risk of HIV infection by women compared to men still due to all the social and biological factors. Women are most in danger of contracting HIV due to gender disparities, poverty, culture and sexual norms, lack of education or sexual violence.

[1] Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS

[2] http://aids.about.com/od/womensresources/a/womenimpact.htm

[3] http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5728/1582

[4] http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2008/12004/Vulnerability_of_women_in_southern_Africa_to.4.aspx

Given the huge impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic throughout the world, programs that emphasize education and prevention have been critical since the initial identification of the virus and its routes of transmission.

In the previous weeks, we have focused on articles discussing the significant populations and target groups that much of the funding and manpower of public health groups has been attributed to. We have also learned how skewed many of these programs are toward altering specific behaviors. Statistical data on the distributions of infected individuals, the rates and geographical patterns of transmission and the lack of available preventative measures have all contributed heavily to determining where resources are sent and how they are used.

HIV prevention programs can have a global impact on changing risk behaviors, if they are instigated intensely with sufficient funding and cultural competency (Holgrave 134). Based on CDC studies, there are specific measures that can be placed into affect in order to maximize the efficiency of HIV prevention programs economically and socially. As of 2006, the CDC estimated that over 350,000 infections had been prevented since prevention programs had gone into affect, averting over $125 billion in medical costs (Fenton 3).

Although studies primarily focused on the United States, the results can be applied globally. Research has shown that the best prevention programs have emphasized and achieved changes in behavior by encouraging entire community participation to share responsibility for prevention efforts. They have focused on the specific needs of the community in which they are instigated, offering resources for all individuals at risk but focusing outreach activities on primary needs. Successful preventative measures must be conveyed in manner that is culturally accessible, understandable and linguistically specific. The audience of each planned initiative should be outlined in advance and both the objectives and mechanisms for attaining them should be presented openly. In addition to these components, successful initiatives must also have sufficient resources. Prevention programs must have sufficient financial backing, as well as human and material resources, to follow through with interventions in the community.  In addition, programs must be designed to create success. At risk individuals must feel inspired to implement risk-reducing behaviors and have those changes be physically and emotionally attainable. They must be taught the skills necessary to change (Holgrave 4).

After 3 decades of HIV prevention programs in the United States the CDC is still developing prevention programs. Although the transmission of HIV in the U.S. has decreased significantly, there are over a million individuals living with HIV. Prevention has expanded to include promotion of testing centers along with educational programs for individuals living with HIV. Previous partner notification initiatives and multi-STI screening opportunities have become highly available. In addition, free condom distribution and needle exchange programs have been implemented through out the country (Fenton 5).

Although the United States is financially more inclined to promote these prevention programs in an attempt to avoid the eventual costs of healthcare, these kinds of initiatives could be instigated elsewhere with great success. The key points are to recognize the importance of cultural intricacies and the promotion of attainable behavioral changes.

Fenton, Kevin, et al. HIV Prevention in the United States. At a critical crossroads. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Holtgrave, David R., Noreen L. Qualls, James W. Curran, Ronald O. Valdiserri, Mary E. Guinan, and William C. Parra. An overview of the effectiveness and efficiency of HIV prevention programs. Public Health Report 1995

In Peter Lewis Allen’s “The Wages Of Sin”, he explains the history of AIDS in the United States of America. As part of his introduction, the sexual revolution as a major player to the awareness of AIDS in America. The sexual revolution eliminated most of the previous taboos associated with casual (outside of wedlock) sex, and replaced them with the notion that sex is just downright awesome. Needless to say, sex became an integral part of American culture, and was even evident in Hollywood films.

Allen mentions “Old scourges like syphilis and gonorrhea were now seen as minor nuisances that could be cured with a couple of shots……prophylactics, contraceptives, and abortion were increasingly socially accepted and easy to obtain.” (Allen 113) This quote made me question whether abortion was more socially acceptable during the sexual revolution versus the present. As we all know, abortion is currently a controversial issue in modern society, with different views regarding the morality of the procedure. From series of anti-abortion billboards/ads to abortion clinic riots throughout the country, I’m left with the thinking that it is overly optimistic to say that abortion is socially accepted in modern times. When looking through the 1971-72 Emory wheels, I found numerous abortion clinic ads. The Wickersham Women’s Medical Center in New York not only posted the prices depending on how long one is pregnant, but also advertised their free psychiatric counseling, family planning, and birth control. Another abortion clinic had an advertisement in large bold font “ABORTION $140. ABORTION”, and also briefly mentioned they had a no referral fee, and served up to 12 weeks. The third ad I found was a local non-profit organization that said “We will help any woman regardless of race, religion, age, or financial status. We do not moralize, but merely help women obtain qualified Doctors for abortions, if this is what they desire. Please do not delay, an early abortion is more simple and less costly, and can be performed on an out patient basis.” I was in utter shock when I found these ads countless times in the 1971 Emory wheels. Prior to seeing these ads, I was under the impression that abortion wasn’t prevalent in society until the 80’s; I guess I was wrong!

Allen explains how C. Everett Koop was the surgeon general that gave America its first talk about AIDS. Koop wanted to address all people, just as the British government had done, to inform every single American household about AIDS. However, this was difficult to achieve, because the disease was viewed as immoral and vulgar. All Koop wanted was to inform that just because one isn’t a young gay men, or drug user, doesn’t mean they are safe from AIDS. Eventually, he finally got the funds for the AIDS brochure, and sent it out over 107 million American households. The White House then wanted to update the brochure by deleting any reference to risky sexual practices and condoms. The GMHC brochures had a similar problem with Reagan administration; they released brochures that taught how to engage in safe sex, how to kiss, and how to perform various sexual acts without exchanging infectious fluids. All of this policy against comprehensive sexual education to me sounds ridiculous. In my opinion, people need to be aware of what is really happening. Do the 1971-72 abortion ads I mentioned earlier promote abortion? Does teaching about safe sex, aimed prevent exchange of infectious fluids, promote sexual activity? Does teaching homeless individuals to use sterilized needles encourage them to do more drugs? I will leave those questions up to anyone who is willing to answer. pLuTo

Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. Chapter 6: “Aids in the USA” 119 -133. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

http://www.mikemason.net/work/magazines.php?cat=news&id=7

http://www.ansirh.org/research/aspects.php

Womens’ roles in HIV/AIDS have drastically changed since the first cases were diagnosed 25 years ago. When the virus was first discovered, females were expected to protect themselves against infection by insisting their partners wear protection or remain abstinent. Recently, though, there has been a switch in how HIV is looked at in regards to gender relations. Now, women are thought of as being extremely vulnerable to HIV infection because heterosexual males are active transmitters of the virus but are not active in prevention (Higgins, Hoffman, and Dworkin, 436).
Women are biologically more susceptible to contracting HIV because the female reproductive system has a larger mucosal surface that remains in contact with genital secretions and seminal fluid for a long time (Women, HIV, and AIDS). When STIs are left untreated, it may result in ulcerations of the vaginal wall that act as routes of entry for HIV. I would not, however, place the sole blame on the gender disparity for contraction on biological differences. Two-thirds of an estimated 40.3 million people who are infected with HIV/AIDS worldwide reside in sub-Saharan Africa, 77% of which are women. There are many factors that contribute to women’s heightened vulnerability in Africa, but much is attributed to women’s loss of control over their sexuality. In Africa, there are many harmful traditional practices such as child marriage, female genital mutilation, scarification, tattooing, wife inheritance, polygamy, sexual violence in the form of rape, and incest and forced prostitution that make females sexually inferior to men. In a majority of these communities, females are the sole caretakers for their families, which contributes to the spread of HIV to their offspring and family members (Iyayi, Iginomwanhia, Bardi, and Iyayi 114).
Women are increasingly becoming the face for the HIV/AIDS virus. Young people accounted for 40% of the 4.2 million new HIV infections in 2005, and young women accounted for 62% of people living with HIV/AIDS between the ages of 15 and 24 (Iyayi, Iginomwanhia, Bardi, and Iyayi 115). The factors that make women more likely to contract the virus can be viewed in the context of sexual inequality, which could affect the dynamics of sexual relationships. If there is not more emphasis on the male’s necessity to take on greater preventative measures when engaging in sexual relations, the virus will begin to spread at an even more rapid pace.
It is interesting that when you look back at the historic treatment of HIV/AIDS in our society, it was originally attributed to gay men and injection drug users. The only mention of females’ involvement in contraction was the role sex workers played in spreading it to heterosexual men. This evolution needs to be reflected in public health campaigns that are targeted at increasing knowledge of the virus and of preventative measures. Women also need to be economically independent in order to self sustain themselves and not have to depend on males for their well being. If the idea of economic stability is constantly running through women’s minds, they will never speak up to make sure they are engaging in safe sex and are not at risk for contracting this awful virus.

WORK CITED:

Higgins, Jenny, Susie Hoffman, and Shari Dworkin. “Rethinking Gender, Heterosexual Men, and Women’s Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS.” Framing Health Matters 100.3 (2010): 435-45. Print.

Iyayi, Festus, R. Osaro Iginomwanhia, Anthonia Bardi, and Omole O. Iyayi. “The Control of Nigerian Women over Their Sexuality in an Era of HIV/AIDS: A Study of Women in Edo State in Nigeria.” International NGO 6.5 (2011): 113-21. Print.

“Women, HIV, and AIDS.” Averting HIV and AIDS. AVERT, 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. .

Emory Wheel- September 6, 2005

November 2004, former Emory medical student, Gary Wayne Carriker was arrested on three felonies including civil litigation suits. He did not rob a bank, commit arson, nor committed homicide. He was arrested because he failed to communicate and inform his sexual partners that he was HIV positive.

Carriker attended Emory’s School of Medicine from 2000 to 2004 and he appeared to be [1]“someone you can trust.” Fulton County arrested Carriker in 2004 based on the Georgia Law that states that all HIV-positive individuals must informs sexual partners of their medical condition.

This article from the Emory Wheel not only caught my attention by its headline, but because Carriker was an intelligent individual, an EMORY individual whom should have know the severity of his condition and should have acted in a more responsible manner. Shouldn’t an Emory student be even more responsible and trustworthy because he/she attends one of the best schools in the country? Should he be charged on harsher grounds? What does his case say about Emory students overall? Did Emory lose some of its prestige with this trial? Also, if we assume that he was going to Medical student to be a doctor, does his trial have negative effects on other professionals in the field? Can we trust them as well?

Whether Carrikers acts may be morally right or wrong he obviously did not feel the need to communicate this to his sexual partners beforehand. The question is why? Explaining this article to a male friend, I asked him whether he would act similarly to Carriker. Surprisingly enough he told me, “Yes, I wouldn’t feel the need to communicate my medical condition to sexual partners if they were just one night stands because I probably wouldn’t ever see them again.” Did Carriker have similar views to this and thus the reason why he kept his silence? If this is true then why even tell them at all?

Do heterosexual males deserve to be punished in this way? As Reverend Falwell says [2]“AIDS is a lethal judgment of God on the sin of homosexuality and it is also the judgment of God on the Americans for endorsing this vulgar, perverted, and reprobate lifestyle. He is bringing judgment against this wicked practice through AIDS (Allen, 123).”

Whatever the case may be, we can see that AIDS is not only spread by those who are uninformed and uneducated. Silence is the first step in prevention however, only when it is communicated before committing the sexual act.

[1] Rao, Erika. “Student accused of spreading HIV.” Emory Wheel. Emory Wheel, 6 Sep. 2005. Print. 9 Nov. 2012.

[2] Allen, Peter Lewis. The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. Chapter 6: “Aids in the USA” 119-123. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

So far this semester, we have addressed the means by which AIDS and STI’s are spread and the facility of women to contract these diseases. Not only does biology appoint women as easy contractors of AIDS but their vulnerability through sexual violence also makes them optimal contractors of this disease. Gay males too carry the stigma for being HIV positive because of their sexual preference and for some, their promiscuity. [1] “From 1981, AIDS was firmly constructed into the west as a disease affecting male bodies, more specifically the bodies of gay men (Richardson, 127).”

Whether these two groups contribute largely to the HIV positive community however, we have not addressed another population of HIV positive individuals who are neither women nor gay men- heterosexual male prostitutes. Don’t be fooled into thinking that all male prostitutes are gay or non-heterosexual and only service women. These are false assumptions.

[1] “Sexualizing the HIV-infected body as gay also encouraged the view that heterosexual men were also not at risk and, by implication, “safe” (Richardson, 128). Although AIDS has been firmly constructed as a ‘male disease’ in the west, the heterosexual male is largely invisible in AIDS discourse (Richardson, 138).”

Curious to find more info about these individuals who linger the streets afterhours, I came upon a short documentary for a new campaign named Invisible: The Unseen World of Male Prostitution. This documentary focuses in on the struggles of male prostitution in Rhode Island. Whether this documentary is fictional or not, does not deviate the focus for new groups that are affected by AIDS; as we tend to focus more on women and gay men prevention.

[2] What this documentary does reveal is the lives of male prostitutes who roam the streets picking up ‘tricks’ for a couple bucks in order to feed their drug addiction. Surprising too, is that they are not all (not seemingly) gay men. They describe the necessity to work the streets in order to acquire the drugs that they need and sometimes having 8-10 clients per night. One male prostitute discusses the lack of AIDS fear and how there are those men who admit their probability of AIDS contraction however, that this does not affect the number of ‘tricks’ they pick up. These heterosexual males have families, girlfriends and are NOT GAY and to put it simply, they are doing what they gotta do to get their fix. It is important to realize that we as a community focus too much on stereotypes and stigma and assume that all who are HIV positive are victims of rape and gay men, why must the stigma stop there?

As discussed in class, we generally think that AIDS prevention entails safe sex with condoms and educating others of AIDS. If everyone is educated, will AIDS stop? What I gathered from this video is that these men are aware of AIDS but there is no real fear for contracting the disease nor spreading it. They just want their drugs and unprotected sex guarantees them more money for their addiction. If then, they know about AIDS and the means of contraction then would further education really make a difference to the spread of AIDS? This is the big question here. What, if any, amount of education is really needed to teach the public about AIDS contraction so that everyone will commit to safer sex practices? In her article, “Structural Violence, Poverty and the AIDS Pandemic”, Jola Mukherjee writes that it is reasoned that AIDS can be prevented through behavior change.

 [3] “HIV prevention can be viewed as two interrelated entities: risk avoidance such as abstaining from sex and drug use; and harm reduction that is minimizing risk while conduction behaviors that are associated with HIV (use of clean needles for drug users and use of condoms). Prevention is often presented as “life-style choices…yet those who live in poverty have severely constrained choice (379).”

If poverty then, is a major factor of AIDS contraction, how can these men who are already struggling to make ends meet, have the opportunity to get the help they need. It is easy for us to reason that their safety is just a trip to Rehab away. This may be an easy solution however, if they chose to leave the streets, where will they find the funds to pay for rehab? If they decide one day that they want to leave the streets, how will they find a job? Who would want to hire them? Are those who continue to have unprotected sex and continue to contract others morally wrong for doing this? Do they feel no obligation to protect others and their well-being just as no one seems to care about their own well-being?

What we need to gather from this documentary and these articles is that, AIDS is not discriminatory. All colors, cultures, and genders are vulnerable to AIDS so we must not aim AIDS support to only specific communities. We must revise our plan of action and find new solutions to help those in need while protecting ourselves from this epidemic.

[1] Richardson, Diane. “In/Visible Women and Dis/appearing Men.” Rethinking Sexuality, 127-138.

[2] KickStarter.com. Invisible: The Unseen World of Male Prostitution. 29 Oct. 2012. Web. 7. Nov. 2012 <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1928510921/invisible-1>

[3] Mukherjee, Joia S. “Structural Violence, Poverty, and the AIDS Pandemic”. Sexual Disease, 379-385.

Abortion has been a topic before and is difficult to avoid in a course like this. Typically, you see the opposing sides battling it out, the “Pro-Choicers” accusing the “Pro-Lifers” of disregarding the rights of the woman and the “Pro-Lifers” rebounding with considering the “Pro-Choicers” to be neglecting a life. Something less seen, however, are advertisements for abortion, strictly outlining details from the clinics hours of operation all the way down to prices according to length of pregnancy. Well, apparently, the Emory Wheel in the early seventies was not afraid to share these details.

This could be  a result of the political forecast at that time. One of the most famous court cases in recent American history, Roe v. Wade concluded that a person has the right to an abortion. The main stipulation regarding this decision was that the abortion could only take place before the point of viability, defining viable as being able to survive outside of the mother’s womb. This 1973 case was one of the largest rulings on the topic of abortion. It is understandable, then, how the way in which people within society spoke about abortion began to shift and evolve.

The ad in the Emory Wheel for T.L.C Abortion stated “Abortion is legal; Abortion is the right of women, DON’T WAIT…ACT NOW.” Clearly this seems to be a response fueled by the relief of the Roe v. Wade ruling. However, with such a blatant advertisement, its hard to ignore the fact that these people have been waiting for a while for the opportunity to broadcast this message. What, then, was the environment like before the ruling? If there were organizations and groups with these views just waiting to seize the chance, the social tension had to be nearly tangible.

But wait, in 1971, there was an even more seemingly controversial ad in the Emory Wheel. Wickersham Women’s Medical Center in October of 1971 listed the prices for an abortion according to how many weeks into term the woman was. It is 2012 and I did not even know how much an abortion would cost today. Yet , in 1971, here in the newspaper is a list outlining it as clear as day…and this is two years before the Roe v. Wade ruling

There were multiple organizations and groups in this era advertising and supporting abortion. The next page over from the Wickersham price list held a small box titled “Pregnant? Need Help?.” Surely this is an adoption agency suggesting that there is always a home for a child that a mother may not feel adequate to raise, right? Nope. According to this ad, “an early abortion is more simple and less costly, and can be performed on an out patient basis.” So why wait?

Perhaps the abortion discussion of previous decades has been underrated. Here we are today, still fighting over the matter and still speaking about it carefully. Yet in the seventies, you could check the price for an abortion at the same time you see where the best denim sales are.

Note Nov 8, 2012 (2)

Note Nov 8, 2012

Note Nov 8, 2012 (1)

Similar reason to why people won’t carry around condoms.

People should not be embarrassed about their sickness. Being open-minded to talk about what they are suffering from would make the patients more willing to seek treatments, become knowledgeable about what they are carrying, and hence possibly prevent further spread of the disease. We all know these but the nature of STD not only makes it difficult for patients, especially females, to comfortably talk about their disease, but also damages them psychologically and culturally. The main reason comes from the promiscuity stigma or even “judgements such as irresponsible, naive, or stupid” (Nack 488) that the disease brings to the patient, even though sexual intercourse is not the only way of transmitting the infections. The article, “Damaged Goods: Mixing Morality with Medicine” by Adina Nack, made me think more about the causes of psychological and social damages that STD can bring to an individual.

In the example of the article, the first thought that came to the infected 20-year-old female undergraduate’s mind after finding out about her possible contraction is that “How could this have happened to me? I’m not a slut” (Nack 488). This immediately shows how her attitude was in the past toward STD and STD patients, that only “sluts” get STD’s when people with few sexual experience can actually contract the infections too, even with ‘proper protection’ (condom). I think this phenomenon is quite similar to our attitude toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. People would talk freely about homosexuality with or without correct understanding about them until they find out that someone very close comes out as homosexual. The psychological hardships in both cases (realisation of STD or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people) are likely to be more intense if they had more negative opinions on STD patients or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. According to “symbolic interactionism,” “[i]dentities are meanings attributed to self, by others and by self” (Nack 491), so, when people get infected by STD’s, they may be psychologically suffering more from their own judgement on themselves.

However, the self-judgement and stigma all comes from the societal attitude that made each individual to possess such negative views. In 1980’s, women were viewed “not as victims of the disease but as risk factors to others,” and HIV infections in women were regarded as “simply the natural consequence of the way they choose to live, the ‘wages of sin'” (Nack 492). Today in the United States, we have a lot better understanding about STD’s and their ways of infecting new people, but incorrect and biased condemnation can break the patients’ mentality seriously, causing larger problems.

I once read a news article about a woman in China who had been sexually abused by many people, including her step-father from when she was fifteen years old. When she found out she got infected with HIV somewhere in her life, and found out that she can no longer pursue her dream of a stable life, she decided to take a revenge on the society, especially to men who she thought ruined her life, and started to have sex with more men, possibly infecting 279 more people.

In Korea, I once watched a TV documentary about a man in his 40’s who believed for several years that he had AIDS after comparing his symptoms to what he read on internet. Because of the harsh societal view on people with STD’s, he ran away from his family to not make his family suffer, and started to live in complete isolation. He refused to go to clinic to be tested for HIV, because he did not want to risk himself by letting people find out about his ‘AIDS’. When the documentary producers finally convinced him to get tested, the result showed that he was HIV negative.

Such examples show that people need to understand about the disease correctly and have more mature view on the patients who are the victims of the disease. In order for us to fight off the STD’s, accurate facts about STD should be communicated through media and education, which will hopefully make the patients feel less painful in their minds.

Source:

Damaged Goods: Mixing Morality with Medicine by Adina Nack

I was interested in the paper titled, “Risk, Identity, and Love in the Age of AIDS. I feel as though I understand this issue because I have seen some of the things this paper mentions as I grew up. The first thing I noticed was about teaching abstinence. On page 619 line 10 it says, “…not far behind was the remarkable popular consensus that no-sex was the best thing to teach and the best thing for teens to practice.” Growing up this lead to an initial cultural shunning of sexuality. I remember in middle school seeing pictures of STD’s, it was one of the worst visual experiences of my life. The scar left in my mind is still felt. However the problem with these scare tactics is that youth, especially youth such as my self, will take chances and make mistakes. Often times it is not until we make mistakes that we actually learn. In the article “A true coming to age story” she mentions how, “right now she is still in the land of flirts and smiles.” There is nothing wrong with her progression into her sexuality, there is nothing wrong with taking your time and figuring it out. But not ever girl will be as graceful and as safe as Suzanne Hyman was in this 2005 edition of the Emory Wheel.

The next major thing to catch my eye was the thought of straight people being able to hold on to multiple identities, were gay people could only be gay. As stated, “..his identity is straight, yes, but mostly he’s seen as African American, or Filipino, or Jewish, a jock, or a gangster or a nerd. But a gay kid is defined by what he is not; he is not straight.” In my high school, I remember it did not matter what ur talents were. If you were gay, you were gay; that’s all a person would have been seen as. Unless you were a female (homosexual or bisexual), note the double standard, you functioned outside of groups of men. They were brutally targeted and viciously insulted. Learning how to insult or “talk shit” is a cultural right of passage were I am from. Its like Sparta, but with words. It would change day to day who the target was. Sometimes it was you sometimes not. But if you were gay, you were always the target.

It was never the girls that hated, just the men. This is not the case 100% of the time, but more often than not it was. In my humblest opinion, gay men are less of a threat to women. Generally this makes it easier for a girl to become close with a gay guy as apposed to a straight guy because he is registered inside her mind as not a threat and therefore will be allowed more leeway with his actions compared to a man she thinks is trying to proposition sex. Men on the other hand, very possibly felt sexually threatened. After all, if he is gay, and he likes men, then may be he likes/wants/lusts after me? I believe this is where all the hate/distrust for the gay men came from when we were growing up. I made my first gay friend in high school when I was trying to get closer to the very attractive girl he was friends with. Not the noble of reasons, I know, but it was a path to understanding for me. Now one of my best friends is gay, and not because I am trying to flirt with his female friend or anything like that. He is just a homie, a good dude. Five six years ago that might not have been possible.

It was once very socially dangerous to be gay. Growing up in the South it may have been worse. After all, this is cotton-pickin-Georgia, and things have never been easy in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. But as I have learned in the archives, life and social progression is a series of battles in a long war. I see the gay community coming up and gaining social independence and more of a place in mass culture every day. Lessons in early school life prepare us for real life, they prepare our identity for all the risk and the love we will get from the world.