Subscribe to our RSS feed

Dave R

Dave R

English but living since 1986 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. HIV+ since 2004 and a neuropathy patient since 2007. I've seen quite a bit, done quite a bit and bought quite a few t-shirts if you know what I mean; but all that baggage makes me what I am today: a better person I believe, despite it all.

You can find much more information about neuropathy and HIV on www.neuropathyandhiv.blogspot.com and here on The Body, along with articles about other subjects.

Oct02

Segregation or integration? It’s nature versus nurture all over again

Tuesday, 02 October 2012 Written by // Dave R Categories // Current Affairs, Youth, Population Specific , Sex and Sexuality , Dave R

Dave R writes...the recent scheme to provide queer-centric education in Toronto is a bold but controversial project but it creates several dilemmas.

Segregation or integration? It’s nature versus nurture all over again

“...Segregation, determination, demonstration, integration

Aggravation, humiliation, obligation to my nation,

Ball of confusion, Oh yeah, that's what the world is today...”

The Temptations: Ball of Confusion 1970

You may have caught the recent CBC news clip, or read about it in Xtra where Fan Wu, a University of Toronto student who graduated from Douglas Collegiate in 2010, put forward the idea of a queer-centric school for Toronto. The idea being that you would be able to provide a safe environment in which the school curriculum could be taught from different angles. History for instance would take on a different flavour if seen through LGBT eyes. It’s a natural follow-on from the Toronto Triangle program which over the last fifteen years has provided safe learning environments for kids who needed both a break and support from being LGBT in a normal or oppressive educational system. Since then it has evolved into something much more than just crisis intervention but remains by definition, small-scale.

You may then wonder why, what seems to be a piece of local news, would be of interest to this particular foreigner observing from afar? The fact is that this concept is a very interesting one which will probably split communities both straight and LGBT.

I was a teacher for thirty years before illness brought an end to my career and although I taught from ages 8 to 18, I very quickly realised one thing: there comes a point when the kids just don’t believe you automatically anymore; they’ve become more cyber-savvy than you and Google becomes a bigger truth. My favourite age to teach was 10 to 12 because they still accept almost everything you tell them and haven’t yet grown into the rebelliousness of adolescence. It’s at that age that you can still teach the difference between right and wrong, with the kids having a good idea of what you’re talking about. That’s not to say that teaching on an LGBT or HIV-positive platform at that age is really a good idea. In the best of all possible worlds maybe but not in the current climate where moral outrage plays such a political role. Your job may be worth more than your principles. However, I firmly believe that it’s the duty of all teachers to search out situations and deal with bullying of any sort at source; the kids will associate those ideas with particular groups at a later date. Both teachers and kids know that outside the classroom, bullying will happen but thinking it’s a fact of life that’s out of your control is a very bad teaching philosophy. At that age, children can really understand what it is to respect other people and to reject injustice of any sort. Those lessons may well stay in their minds.

I used to start off by admitting my own mistakes. If I got irrationally irritated at a child for some reason, I would apologise in front of both the child and the class. Then, using the same principle, if one child got angry with another, we would stop whatever the lesson was and deal with it by talking it out right there and then. If necessary, apologies would be demanded and hands would be shaken. I used to tell them that it was our duty as a class, including the teacher, to stick together and work as a sort of extended family to make our long periods of time together positive experiences. Our classroom should be a safe place at all times. We would regularly have discussions and debates on topics of the day and every child was encouraged to speak, in the knowledge that their opinion was as good as anybody else’s.

In this manner, I was able to introduce abstract social values and apply them to whatever situation the discussion was about. Everybody was encouraged to admit their mistakes, stand up for others and take responsibility for their actions. There was zero tolerance for bullying and every year, the success of this policy was proved by the number of unlikely alliances that took place in the school yard. If someone else from the class was being pestered, others stood up for them and nobody was excluded.

It was a multi-cultural school; there was no choice! I’m not saying it was perfect; it frequently wasn’t; kids fell out with each other as kids do and very often I had to back down from my own injustices (I was frequently taken to task over unfair homework assignments) but in general the children learned how to interact with each other socially based on respect for the other’s individuality and allowing for the fact that we can all fail at times. If teachers can somehow instil in children that all forms of bullying are absolutely unacceptable and at the same time, constantly show why that has to be so, the message may stick. It shouldn’t be an impossible task but you can’t just write these things on a poster and stick it on the classroom wall; you have to live it as well.

During my last year of teaching, a white, South African, ex-pupil who was then 18, paid a return visit. The first day he’d arrived at the school at the age of nine, he’d told the Nigerian girls in the class that as of that moment they would be at his beck and call (this was before the end of apartheid). It was a cultural shock for him when the girls laughed in his face and told him that’s not how it worked in our school. During his visit, he told me something that I’ve never forgotten:

“I loved being in your class because you taught me how to look at other people in the same way I look at myself and that I wasn’t better or worse than anybody else.”

All that said; I could only make that approach work for kids who were open to social ideas and who hadn’t already formed unmoveable prejudices one way or the other. As I said, the ages ten to twelve are ideal but I do realise that most kids are being educated in schools where the demographic is far less privileged than that of an International school full of ex-pats. The principles for teaching must be the same but the chances of success are much less. You may also rightly point out that sexuality is largely a teenage struggle and unless you fit into the norm, you run the risk of being ostracised and worse, abused and for that reason, the Toronto projects must have value.

The dilemma is; do we want integration or segregation? As one lady points out in the clips; all schools should be safe environments for the socially different but that’s a ‘best of all possible worlds’ scenario and teachers have never been under the stress they are under now, both from their pupils and from the administrations that require every action to be noted in triplicate.

Of course, Queer-centric, or LGBT-friendly schools shouldn’t be necessary because all schools should provide a balanced social and educational environment where kids feel safe in being who they are. However, it just may not be realistic as yet. Look at the problems of race and culture which are taking decades to be resolved. Adding LGBT issues to the mix shouldn’t on the face of it be that difficult but in the real world kids still have to survive largely on their own.

Providing safety for children should be a given and in that sense, if there’s no alternative, then ‘segregated’ schools may well provide a sticking-plaster solution but the aim should always and untiringly be to change attitudes in all state schools.

It does make you think though. We prefer to go to LGBT-only bars, LGBT parties, discos, saunas and even cruises. Why, because we feel more comfortable there; we can be ourselves amongst like-minded people. So should we deny our LGBT teens the chance to be educated in a similar space? You may even have fantasised about the possibility of an LGBT state, or island, totally independent from hetero-normative influence but let’s face it, the biggest attraction of that sort of fantasy would be the greater chances of hooking up! Have you ever sat on an LGBT committee! Bitch-slapping becomes a new art and you want to run away screaming after an hour. Our local LGBT tennis club was a microcosm of how a gay state may be run – you spend four hours debating the first two points on the agenda and then woe betide you if you piss off madam chairperson! The idea of an LGBT-run administration heading a nation fills me with horror, however, that may be just me.

Segregation in any form is also one of the most loaded words of the 20th Century. Hitler took it to apocalypse levels and separated Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals to exterminate them. All it needed was a different coloured star to reduce you to an ‘untermensch’ and the frightening thing is that many of the people in conquered lands helped the process along. The reverberations caused by segregation in the United States and South Africa are still being keenly felt as black people seek to establish an equal identity. Even so-called civilised societies seriously considered shipping off all people with HIV to an island separated from the rest of the population (yes Sweden, you did!). It can go horribly wrong. So does segregation actually create prejudice? History suggests it does and integration may be a far better method for ensuring less visibility and therefore more acceptance within a society; you can then effect change from within.

Taking all that into account, I’m still not sure that Fan Wu and the people behind the Toronto Triangle Program are wrong. When all’s said and done, it must be better to at least provide an option where LBGT kids can find an educational haven, safe from the sort of oppression that inhibits their development. If things have got to be so bad that it’s a choice between social isolation and misery and an environment where their potential can be realised, it’s probably a no-brainer. After all, societies across the western world provide ‘shelters’ for the homeless, for abused women and children, for drug addicts and even for prisoners just out of jail – the systems are in place, they just have to be adapted. The question is, do you want it to be this way, or do you want to give society the chance to sideline us even further because we’ll look after our own so to speak?

Personally, I found the very idea of any form of segregation abhorrent. To my mind, society has to fix itself and we need to take an active role in doing that. Ignorance and abusive attitudes should be eliminated through education. However, now I’m not so sure. History surely tells us that societies just don’t fix themselves and utopias don’t exist. Stigma and stereotypical prejudices may well be part of human nature and thinking that we can change that on a nation-wide scale may be an illusion. So maybe we should look after our own whenever the opportunity arises and maybe that will show the world that there are alternatives and that prejudice is wasted energy. I just don’t know anymore. I do know that this sort of project in Canada would be unthinkable here in the Netherlands because we live under the illusion that we live in one of the freest and most tolerant societies in the world. We don’t; it’s a veneer and if you scratch the surface the same stories appear here as anywhere in the world. A world in financial crisis doesn’t help matters; in those times, societies pick on their weakest because somebody has to be blamed. The Republicans in the States have built a whole campaign around that concept. So my final word on the matter is good luck to those with the courage to present controversial ideas for improving the lot of LGBT people. I’ll be following any progress with great interest.

The following YouTube clip, produced by Xtra is an interesting look at the views of people on the street on this matter, although their interviewees could be said to be a desired demographic. Whether this reflects the views of the population as a whole is another matter. 

Sep21

I’m Not Your Daddy!

Friday, 21 September 2012 Written by // Dave R Categories // Dating, Gay Men, Lifestyle, Living with HIV, Opinion Pieces, Population Specific , Sex and Sexuality , Dave R

Dave R writes...expert advice tells us to be honest in our profiles because you’ll be found out in reality anyway but what happens when nobody reads further than the first line and you’re taken for something you’re not?

I’m Not Your Daddy!

Ever since I was young and wet behind the ears, I’ve always fallen for men of my own age or older and despite the rapid advance of the so-called golden years, (it had to be a yuppie, real-estate shark who came up with that term; probably to describe the residents of his ‘Shady Pines’ retirement complex) that still applies.

I still surf the Net and have a few active profiles although it’s more to fill the time and satisfy my curiosity than a serious attempt to hook up. It takes me about half an hour every couple of days, to surf through the various sites and see what’s what. Okay, I confess, it’s also to see who’s clicked on my profile and who’s showing any sort of interest. Needy, moi? Not really; the body may be unwilling these days but the mind is still the horny, twenty-something of yesteryear, looking for a bit of gay affirmation!

I’m completely honest in those profiles. I give my real age; display photos that are less than two years old (that’ll have to change soon...your looks deteriorate in dog years after a certain age) and show links to all the HIV sites I work on. The DD-free and UB2 brigade still send me messages, though mainly because the idiots don’t ever read past the first line of a profile. (I can’t help it if people have the attention spans of gnats). So all in all, it’s a case of what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG if you must have the acronym) and people can then make their minds up.

My personal text states clearly that I’m not interested in anything ‘right now’, or even in the near future and most importantly tells the reader that I’m not interested in anyone under 40. Even that limit will have to go up soon, ‘cos even the 40-plussers see me as prehistoric these days. I’m really not interested in kids (by which I mean 18 to 40) but I might as well have written it in Serbo-Croat for the amount of good it does!

Just this morning, on one site there were four messages. The first was from a Ghanaian, with yet another over-blown verse attached, about the virtues of everlasting love. Straight in the waste bin for that one and all its clones (preferably without opening). I’m not going to be scammed by the Nigerian mafia into sending money, or providing an air ticket to the Netherlands. The second was from a 19 year old Rumanian – same result and for the same reasons. The third was a 23 year old Dutch kid, who clearly has a poor understanding of English (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt). He got an ear bending in his own language about the advantages of reading profiles properly. That was an exception; most of those also clog up the trash bin. The fourth was an Englishman; 34 years old, who opened with: “Hi Daddy...Grrrrrr!” Yes, six ‘r’s no less and that was the sum total of the message! It also went the way of all the rest but I was unnecessarily pissed off for the umpteenth time! I felt like sending him the download link for ‘Annie, I’m not your Daddy’ by Kid Creole but life’s just too short.

Okay, any attention is maybe better than none but when three quarters of all the messages you receive are from people a million miles from your interest group, it gets a bit tiring. It’s not so much the fact that these kids just don’t read the small print; it’s the fact that I’ve become a ‘daddy’ and I hate it with a vengeance. I’d put that in the profile in capital letters, three times underlined if I thought for a minute it would do any good but it wouldn’t. So what gives with these kids? Why do they waste my time and theirs with hopeless messages?

Of course, when I was that age there was no internet or social networking; we had to admire from afar, or get picked up in less than salubrious places by the guys we wanted. I can’t remember ever having any sort of semi-incestuous father complex that translated to sexual desire, though. I liked older guys but mainly because they were less flighty, knew what they were doing and were more attractive to me than a pimply-faced competitor from my own peer group. The idea that anybody was a daddy-substitute would have made me pretty uncomfortable, just at the thought.

So why do so many modern, young men see us as ‘daddies’ (or worse, grandpas)? I know some young guys are genuinely into much older but they’re just not in proportion to the number of ‘grrrs’ and ‘woofs’ I get from kids barely out of diapers. I don’t buy into the incest thing either; I just think it’s yet another label which the gay social media has invented to fit us into some hierarchical gay cubby hole or something. I confess, I always had a bit of a yearning to be a Bear but that was because I was tall and lanky and anything but beefy. The fact that I get messages referring to me as a ‘daddy bear’ (with or without the ‘Grrr’) probably has more relation to my expanding stomach and the fact that I have a goatee than my fitting into their bear fantasies. It’s nothing new of course; gay men have always slotted each other into sub groups of sub tribes and the use of most of the furry examples of the animal world has provided abundant tags for homo(sexual) sapiens.

I blame the Clones in the 70’s and 80’s myself. That irrational need to present yourself as mega masculine and butch as hell set a trend that Bears, Wolves, Cubs and Otters follow gladly today. But let’s be honest here; aren’t many ‘Bears’ really actually unhealthily overweight (sorry guys; I know that can be attractive too)? A name for my group, (tall and skinny...giraffes, or storks?) never really emerged from the pack to give us validation, no matter how much facial and body hair we had. Maybe that’s it; I just could never get my gay scouting badge so I could fit in! But ‘Daddy’, really! Could it be any more demeaning? 

That is, of course, unless you’re attracted to guys thirty years younger than yourself  - and many of my generation are; perhaps even a majority. Then being addressed as ‘daddy’ means that the younger person is attracted to you...so let the games begin. So maybe I’m being unfair to all the older guys who are happy to see themselves as ‘daddies’  - but put the prefix, ‘sugar’ in front of it then I wonder if they’re just as flattered. Let’s face it, in these testing financial times, a ‘sugar daddy’ may be a very attractive option for a younger man struggling to make ends meet. However, putting on my grandma hat here; just so long as both sides know what they’re getting into and what the ground rules are from the start, where’s the harm?

In my case though, I’m clearly in denial about my own mortality and cringe at being referred to as a ‘daddy’ by people I’m actually old enough to be a daddy to their fathers! Not that it’s of earth-shattering importance; in the great wonder of things, it’s absolutely not. I have a thing about labels anyway, so maybe I should just chill and let it happen. After all, if someone’s clicked on your profile and taken the trouble to write a message (even if it is just two meaningless words) maybe that is better than being totally ignored. The problem is, I know deep down they’re not writing to me; they’re writing to a label, a photo taken in flattering light and a fantasy that they think I fit into. It’s just too shallow for words but hey, if I can’t stand the heat; I should probably click on all my profiles and delete!

Actually, do you want to know the definition of the impossible dream? It’s the HIV positive guy, with complications and daily discomfort, living alone and looking for a little physical togetherness and affection now and then, from a sympathetic buddy. Try putting that in your profile and smoking it! You leave yourself open to yet another tag...loser! and a pathetic, needy one at that. Now really; unwanted sharing or not; did I say it was me? When all is said and done, it’s probably better to be a ‘daddy’ than a reject. I know I’m not the only one though; there are many, many thousands of us but sex and the single, geriatric HIV-plusser is a topic for another post. So, if I’m honest, the whole truth probably doesn’t go into my profiles; mainly because I still have enough dignity to know that the internet is no place for baring your soul. I know...I can hear you all muttering, “Oh stop whining and do something about it.” Maybe I will; maybe I’ll find what I need in Shady Pines!

However, to really make my day; all I want is a pop-up message from Franco Nero (oh wait a minute, he might be dead by now!), Sam Elliott, or Tom Selleck and a time machine...now is that too much to ask?

Sep14

Gore Vidal: The Bitch Who Could Have Made President

Friday, 14 September 2012 Written by // Dave R Categories // Arts and Entertainment, Gay Men, Current Affairs, Population Specific , Dave R

Dave R writes..Gore Vidal’s recent death meant the loss of one of the great observers of American life. This was a privileged, gay man who punctured inflated egos for fun and whose writing and personality elevated him to the top levels of American culture

Gore Vidal: The Bitch Who Could Have Made President

"We are all bisexual to begin with. That is a fact of our condition. And we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from our own as well as from the opposite sex. Certain societies at certain times, usually in the interest of maintaining the baby supply, have discouraged homosexuality. Other societies, particularly militaristic ones, have exalted it. But regardless of tribal taboos, homosexuality is a constant fact of the human condition and it is not a sickness, not a sin, not a crime ... despite the best efforts of our puritan tribe to make it all three. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Notice I use the word 'natural,' not normal."  Esquire 1969

Maybe surprisingly, I don’t think Gore Vidal would have minded the title of this article at all, although he might have described it as slightly vulgar and simplistic. He once said that journalists continually accused him of being vitriolic, vicious and venomous but when challenged to find a single vicious comment, whether spoken or written, they couldn’t. That was the genius of the man. His intellect was a towering force and he would happily use it to intimidate his interviewers. He could smile at his opponents, take their arm and then destroy them with a few well-chosen words. His antagonist would as often as not smile in return and retreat knowing he or she was wounded but not knowing quite how. Any debate with Gore was often an unequal contest but behind the linguistic skills and languid look was a man with huge ambition and an enormous understanding of how America worked. The fact that he was gay just adds to the fascination but it was only one facet of this literary, social and political heavyweight.

He was born Eugene Luther Gore Vidal, in West Point, New York, on October 3, 1925 and died on 31th August, this year. The fact that he was born in the most famous military academy in the world was no coincidence and you could conclude that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. What he made of himself after that was entirely due to his own talents and ambition but there’s no doubting he had all the right connections to open the necessary doors.

His grandfather was senator Thomas Gore, who was a larger than life figure in US politics for years and his father was Eugene Vidal, who took charge of Roosevelt’s commercial air operations for many years in the Thirties. His mother, Nina Gore Vidal was also a colourful figure who, after divorcing his father, married Hugh Auchincloss, a wealthy financier. Gore himself said that his mother had a long affair with Clark Gable. Whether that was true or not, she was then in turn divorced by Auchincloss who went on to marry Jackie Kennedy’s mother. Too many details you might think but this laid the foundations for a close connection between Gore Vidal and the Kennedy family that lasted through John F. Kennedy’s presidency. Not that Vidal was too impressed by the Bouvier sisters though, as he showed in his work ‘Two Sisters’ in 1970.

Nevertheless, Gore Vidal became known by everyone and was welcome at all the right parties and dinners, from Washington to Hollywood, via Europe and all stations in between. Even this wouldn’t have been enough without the ability to make himself indispensible on the A-list, guest lists and that he achieved through his undoubted talent as a writer and wit. To say that he was multi-talented at the highest level is borne out by his achievements in so many fields.

Literary career

He published his first novel (‘Williwaw’) at the young age of 21 and with its World War 2 theme, it became a big success. Without question, the first rung of the ladder was climbed due to his connections; not many twenty one year olds were taken on as new authors but the quality was there and ensured a continuing career in writing.

However, it was his second novel that brought him a mass of publicity, both good and bad. Two years after ‘Williwaw’ he published ‘The City and the Pillar’, an unashamed book about homosexuality. The book critic of the New York Times found it so disgusting that he refused to review Vidal’s next five books. That in itself was a big deal – you pissed off the New York Times at your peril! Even though Vidal was never one to be afraid of publicity and could be said to have sought it out at every turn, he responded to the backlash by writing a series of mystery novels in the 1950’s under the pseudonym, Edgar Box. They kept his head above water financially, although there was never a risk of abject poverty!

So what was the fuss about ‘The City and the Pillar’? Today we wouldn’t see it as shocking at all; in fact it’s not much more than a description of a fairly mundane gay affair between two high school jocks. In the light of the times though, it must have arrived like a meteorite in the book-reading circles of post war America. Firstly, the author was just 21 and secondly, 1946 was anything but a cheerful time in a country still recovering from the exertions of the world war. It was the beginning of a time of choking conformity in the States, leading to its pinnacle in the McCarthy era in the fifties. What was perhaps most shocking to its readers was Vidal’s successful attempt to show homosexuality as being something that could and did happen in ‘normal’ middle class America. The characters are portrayed as ‘normal’ masculine men, which worried those believing in stereotypes no end. It wasn’t by any means his greatest literary achievement but it was only his second and he was still so young. It did set the tone though, for a man who never shied away from homosexual themes and as such should be regarded as a pioneer.

As a post script to the discussion about ‘The City and the Pillar’, decades later, Vidal confirmed that the book was dedicated to Jimmy Trimble, who was killed at Iwo Jima. Inside the front cover, the book is dedicated to ‘J.T’. Later, Vidal also said that Trimble was the only man he had ever loved, so his motives for writing the book may well be much deeper than at first seemed. 

He wrote twenty five novels in total, which was prolific when you consider how many essays, columns, short stories, film scripts and Broadway plays he wrote on top. His essays about politics and literature were regarded as being top quality writing even by his sternest critics and revealed his enormous knowledge about the world at large and understanding about the way it worked. He wandered through Europe with his friend Tennessee Williams and in Paris, Andre Gide called him ‘a prophet of the sexual revolution’. He was accepted in European cafe society but used every opportunity to observe and gather information about life, from the most brilliant minds of the time.

However, living the high life came at a cost and Vidal quickly realised that his novels weren’t going to bring him enough income to continue doing that. Someone with such an ego would always be attracted by the bright lights of Broadway and Hollywood and he decided to apply himself to writing for stage and screen.

"I am not at heart a playwright; I am a novelist turned temporary adventurer; and I chose to write television, movies and plays for much the same reason that Henry Morgan selected the Spanish Main for his peculiar – and not dissimilar – sphere of operations."

Whether he was a born playwright or not, he was enormously successful. In 1957, he wrote ‘Visit to a Small Planet’, which was a satire about an alien arriving on Earth intent on starting World War Three. It ran for more than 300 performances on Broadway. In 1960, he had a hit with the political play, ‘The Best Man’, which went on to be an equally successful film in 1960, starring Henry Fonda.

Turning his hand to screenwriting produced successes such as an adaptation of Tennessee Williams’ ‘Suddenly Last Summer’ and he also revised the final script of ‘Ben Hur’ in 1959. It was a standing joke that Vidal wrote in a gay sub plot between the main characters, which passed Charlton Heston by completely. Heston would not have been amused or even done it if he had known. His screenwriting continued at a pace and the showman that he was, also accepted minor roles in films, most notable in ‘Bob Roberts’ as a senator. Perhaps his most famous novel to become a film however from an LGBT point of view, was ‘Myra Breckenridge’ in 1968. Myra was the narrator and before her sex change was Myron, a nephew of a retired singer. It was a treatise for feminism and Myra famously opens the novel by declaring: “I am Myra Breckenridge whom no man will ever possess.”

Gore Vidal’s great love though was history and politics and his writing increasingly reflected this. The books ‘Empire’; ‘Hollywood’ and ‘The Golden Age’ in the nineties, were books linking the heroes and heroines to history, politics and each other. Finally, in 1995, he wrote a memoir ‘Palimpsest’ which looked back at his own life but was most famous for the cutting portraits of the great and the good, in which he took few prisoners. Many of his critics called it pure gossip but his literary style lifted it above that and showed a side of celebrity, both entertainment and political, that raised many an eyebrow due to its accuracy.

Political Career

Vidal was a Democrat through and through but as he grew older, his politics were probably even more left wing. He saw the American party political system as two sides of the same coin. In the 1970’s, he wrote:

“There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently ... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

Perhaps not surprisingly considering his family and background, Vidal was always fascinated by politics and political machinations. In 1960 he made his first attempt to stand for congress in New York. Despite gaining a large democratic vote, he was unsuccessful then and again in 1982 when he lost against Governor Jerry Brown in the California Primary. Between 1970 and 1972, he was one of the chairmen of the People’s Party, which was basically an anti-war party but was too small-scale to make a difference.

He never lost political ambition and was more than once touted as being a possible presidential candidate, something he wholeheartedly endorsed but whether this was ever a realistic option is open to doubt. Basically, he could never promote himself either as a man of the people, or someone without controversy in his life. Ordinary people saw him as being elitist and linked with the top political dynasties, despite the fact that he was very much aware of the problems of the working man. His left wing views made him many friends amongst the protest generations but also made him deeply suspect to conservative Middle America. Furthermore, his public rows with both literary peers and political and TV commentators, whilst providing a show, damaged his credibility as a balanced political leader. Then of course, you have the gay image, which on its own more or less excluded him from achieving high political office.

That all said, he had the ability to tell it like it was and that made him a sought after chat show guest and his essays and columns backed up his opinions with vast historical knowledge. He called George W. Bush, "...the stupidest man in the United States” and accused the Bush administration of manipulating the Gulf wars to serve the interests of the US oil industry. More recently, in 2009, in an interview with the London Times, he said: "We’ll have a dictatorship soon in the US and don’t expect Barack Obama to save it" which summed up his latest views on the state of America.

You could say that Vidal was somewhat of a populist Democrat, who maybe went too far even for his own party. This, plus his public profile, maybe robbed the USA of a potentially brilliant top politician.

People remember him too for his very public feuds with literary rivals such as Norman Mailer (who he compared to Charles Manson) and Truman Capote and other celebrities of the time, such as Andy Warhol ("Warhol is the only genius I know of with an I.Q. of 60,") which was vintage Vidal. You get the feeling though that he started these arguments more for the fun of it and personal amusement, than out of genuine animosity. Perhaps the most famous row was with William F Buckley (arch conservative author and political commentator) on ABC, at the Democratic convention in 1968. This quote sums up the tone of that particular confrontation:

Vidal: “As far as I'm concerned the only pro- or crypto-Nazi I know of is yourself.”

Buckley: “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face.”

His personal life was a little less clear. Publicly, as the quote at the top of this article suggests, he always played the bisexual card and was engaged at least once (to Joanne Woodward) but whether you find that credible or not, there’s no doubting his commitment to the gay cause. He claims to have loved sex and had lots of it and if you look at the photo of him as a young man, you can well believe it but the long-term relationship with Howard Austen which began in 1950 was a sexless one. He attributed the success of that relationship to its platonic nature:

"It's easy to sustain a relationship when sex plays no part & impossible, I have observed, when it does." 

All in all, Gore Vidal’s death last month means the loss of one of America’s great colourful characters. He was a brilliant writer, essayist and political commentator as well as providing many of Broadway’s and Hollywood’s most memorable moments. Not likeable to everyone, his wit and intellect set him so far above most of his peers that you could reasonably say that America has lost one of its great cultural icons. He was an original and there are few enough left of those. On hearing of his death, a British Channel 4 commentator said:

"I imagine Gore Vidal will get to heaven and find it terribly bland. I hope he somehow sends us back a review."

Amen to that.

Some of Gore Vidal’s most famous quotes can be found here

Sep07

Are We A Dying Breed?

Friday, 07 September 2012 Written by // Dave R Categories // Activism, International AIDS Conference , Conferences, Living with HIV, Opinion Pieces, Dave R

Dave R writes...is HIV-activism largely an issue for the older generation, or can we rely on the young people of our community to fight on for their rights when we’re gone?

Are We A Dying Breed?

Call me an old cynic (guilty) but I’m beginning to feel that individuals within governments and health organisations can’t wait for the day when the ‘bulge’ in HIV cases has flattened out and died a natural death.

Basically the ‘bulge’ consists of people who were infected between say, 1985 and 1995. Keeping us alive in days of austerity and purse-tightening may be less of a priority than it once was when the whole population seemed to be threatened by the virus. The majority may have died in those years and the years before combination therapies arrived but enough survived, to become a significant drain on health budgets today. Not only have we survived but our bodies are aging more quickly than our age suggests and we’re showing signs of years and years of heavy medication use. However, getting older from a spin-doctor’s perspective, means being non-productive; not contributing to the economy and exhibiting signs of age-related diseases which may or may not be related to HIV. This is not to mention the cost of treating us. Not exactly a politician’s dream demographic! Never mind; to solve their problem, we’ll all be gone soon; leaving just the more evenly-spread and possibly fewer, ‘younger’ cases to deal with. It is in those groups that ‘the end of AIDS’ may become a reality, if only because economies may be better able to deal with them.

Of course, this has to be seen in the context of developed countries and not the desperately poor lands in the third world. In those places, there is no question of an HIV ‘bulge’ because HIV is spread through the generations. The problem is logistically different and much, much larger and has to be tackled by governments and international aid agencies providing the necessary resources. This may end up depending on the good will of pharmaceutical companies in reducing their medication costs (I don’t need to be cynical here; you all know how that will turn out!) but for the purposes of this article, I’m talking about the western, HIV baby boomers, who never had babies which would grow up and contribute to society.

It’s true; in a few decades, all the heroes, the battlers and survivors of the eighties and nineties will pass into history, leaving a new but much smaller generation of HIV patients who will probably have access to better medicines and who knows  - maybe even a cure, or a vaccine. This is of course, unless PrEP and treatment as prevention go horribly wrong and the virus re-emerges triumphant and resistant. On the other hand, maybe HIV will disappear in the same way that smallpox and other major viruses have. The question should be asked though; will we be remembered in two hundred years time? Possibly not.

From 1918 to 1920, after the First World War, there was an influenza pandemic that wiped out between 50 and 130 million people across the world and 500 million were infected. It was less than a hundred years ago! It is thought to have been a sort of avian flu and could easily happen again. Viruses are like that; they flare up when you least expect them and it has always been so. HIV just follows the pattern. However, do we remember the dead, the survivors and their stories in that influenza pandemic? Any of them? How many of us even know that it happened? So assuming that our dead and survivors will enter the history books is optimistic at best. Personally, I find that idea horrifying but that’s how the shit goes down on this planet.

So, as survivors of what turned out not to be the world-consuming plague everybody feared; should we be surprised that for us, the air has gone out of the HIV motivation balloon somewhat? The 2012  International AIDS Conference in Washington left me feeling distinctly underwhelmed (I wasn’t there – so all criticism valid). Maybe it was because the agenda seemed to be modified to suit American media tastes (first time it was held in the U.S.); or maybe because men who have sex with men, drug users and sex workers were largely ignored and left out of the main debates (possibly also linked to the first reason); or maybe because the conclusions were so lukewarm and clichéd, you wonder why 24,000 people bothered turning up! Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure a great deal of useful work was done in Washington but the overall impression is not one of innovation and progress...maybe that’s a public relations problem!

‘The delegates came away with ‘...the end of AIDS is in sight’ ringing in their ears. No it’s not! Nothing was said or proved at the conference to back up that piece of propaganda. AIDS will end either when the virus dies a natural death (as is the way with viruses), or a cure, or vaccine is found, or when the entire male population of the world becomes impotent, (keep following the obesity diet guys).

It’s all a chess match of course and if it weren’t so serious we could all have a laugh at these games of thrones within the political structures dealing with HIV. These conferences are not for the average HIV Joe going about his business and trying to make the best of it; they’re aimed at much higher and more intangible targets. Conferences present the public face of HIV/IDS. They are intended to make sure funding is there, or is continued, or is increased. They are there to sway political opinion, so that delegates then go back to their local administrations and try to squeeze out a few more dollars to support the cause. Key note speakers are invited to get media attention. Sir Elton is and always has been a huge HIV benefactor, so his motives cannot really be questioned but apart from saying the same things he’s said for years, he didn’t really add anything new to the subject. Hilary Clinton also looked at the past and the present but had little to say about the future. Their value lay in the fact that national newspapers and TV stations would report their presence and therefore engender publicity. Obama didn’t come but apart from the obvious election year pitfalls of turning up at an AIDS Conference; there was nothing for him to be there for. If there had been news of a cure, or a vaccine, or a massive injection of public funds, you can bet your bottom dollar that his face would have grinned at us from all the posters.

So the first generations of HIV patients should maybe accept the fact that, apart from a declining number of vocal activists who are still doing their best, we’re maybe not going to be heard any more and the baton should be passed on to the younger generations. We can bitch from the sidelines (like this particular grumpy old man loves to do) but we may never be the power for good that we once were. I’m sure people like Larry Kramer will grind his teeth at the very idea.

The problem is that the younger generations are less than enthusiastic at the idea of carrying the torch into the future because their experience of HIV has been radically different. They don’t have skeletal, dying men imprinted on their retinas; so they look at HIV as an irritating and sometimes dangerous disease but not a particularly deadly one. They know what’s happening in the third world but as with all third world catastrophes, those things are comfortably far away. What they don’t realise is that public opinion is a fickle mistress and they need to be alert to political responses to populist extremism. If HIV is not seen as a vote winner and being anti LGBT, or anti HIV will gain politicians political power, then we’re all in trouble. Stigmatism will rise; criminalisation laws may be judicially just the beginning; money will mysteriously dry up; trends in HIV (such as the recent alarming increase amongst the black populations of US cities) will be pushed onto the back burner and the fight against the virus will be seen as politically incorrect. That’s why, dying breed or not, every voice that questions why, what or how, is as important as it has ever been. Whether we’ll be still be listened to, or be taken seriously either by the powers that be, or even our own people, remains to be seen. I suspect, as I said at the beginning, that in certain circles, there may not be many tears shed, when we wrinkly old thorns in the side of the health establishment finally pop our clogs.

‘Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It's not’.  Dr. Seuss

 

Aug31

Sex And The Positive Single Senior

Friday, 31 August 2012 Written by // Dave R Categories // Aging, Living with HIV, Opinion Pieces, Sex and Sexuality , Dave R

Dave R writes...In a gay world as obsessed by sex as ever, the need for intimacy doesn’t end at fifty. The spectre of isolation and exclusion can drive positive older men, to seek out physical contact and closeness.

Sex And The Positive Single Senior

Every life deserves a certain amount of dignity, no matter how poor or damaged the shell that carries it.”  Rick Bragg, ‘All Over But the Shoutin'

I say this with shame but when I was in my twenties, the idea of ‘old guys’ having sex with each other was pretty horrifying; it was like imagining your parents on top of each other...the stuff of nightmares! At that age, you never think about getting old yourself, or your body losing its shape and your skin resembling elephant hide and that’s the way it should be.

Nature ensures that you’re in your reproductive prime while you’re young. You are at your most attractive for as long as there’s a chance that you might procreate the species and luckily, men stay that way longer than women (ask Hollywood’s geriatric fathers!). Being gay sort of sidesteps Mother Nature because you’re not really interested in breeding new generations but still have all the desires to ‘do it’ for as long as possible. Win-win situation really and because there was never the worry of getting your partner pregnant, that’s possibly why bare-backing was the norm until the 1980’s and may be why it’s still so difficult to change old habits. Then HIV and AIDS arrived and everything changed.

Today, the need for sex is still as strong as it ever was; there just needs to be a thin film of rubber between sperm and recipient to increase safety. Now at a certain age (which was different for everyone) in generations past, the ability and maybe desire to have gratifying sex gradually faded. Performance problems and enlarged prostates made sex much more of a hurdle than it used to be and older guys retired into their hobby- or relationship-filled lives and sex became unavoidably less important.

Hello Viagra!

When I say Viagra, I include all the generic and alternative versions too (Viagra priced itself out of market domination through thinking it was the only alternative possible...ha, ha!). Whatever little blue, green or multicoloured father’s little helper men used, it rejuvenated sex lives after 50 for millions of men. Suddenly, there was a way of prolonging your sex life until your body just couldn’t take it anymore. Why hasn’t its inventor received the Nobel Peace prize!

Youngsters may not like the idea but oldies can now fuck like bunnies again and it must have lifted the spirits of countless men since it came out. Not that it’s perfect; the headaches, dry throats and other side effects can be irritating, not to mention the strain on the heart that’s already been through so much. I do wonder what the long term effects on the young will be though. These pills have been adopted by young people as a sort of security blanket and party drug; they really don’t need it but can’t afford to fail. Brilliant marketing but then again it was always a no-brainer, guaranteed success. Young guys should understand though that testosterone and hormones should be enough for decades of partying without a chemical aid; many of us ‘more mature’ guys don’t have much of a choice.

Understanding that most gay guys over the age of 50 are in the same boat should take away many of the insecurities accompanying testosterone depletion, but it won’t. Young guys think they’ve got it bad; the competition is murderous and you’re only as good as your last conquest, but older guys have a whole set of other issues to overcome when it comes to sex.

The HIV thing for instance!

Believe me; I think it’s tragic when a young guy becomes HIV positive. At this moment of time he has to live with it for the rest of his life and therefore has to join the race for potential partners with a distinct disadvantage. I wouldn’t want to be young again with HIV but statistically, a vaccine surely and hopefully has to emerge eventually (which will be small comfort, I know).

Older guys with HIV have bad memories which stay with them forever. They’ve lived with the virus for years and have filled their bodies with heavy-duty chemicals which will inevitably take their toll. They may suffer from a plethora of side effects which limit their activities, or they may have been lucky enough to live a more or less, ‘normal’ life. They may have had problems with stigmatisation which has made them nervous and unsure about profiling themselves in public and now they’re under legal pressure to disclose if they’re going to have sex. Most older men don’t have the devil may care attitude of youth any more.

None of this takes into account the guilt that many mature HIV-plussers consciously or subconsciously feel. Some feel that they don’t deserve to have partners and that throws up insurmountable barriers to relationships. Many also have body issues because the virus has left its mark physically. Weight loss; loss of fat in the face; extra fat on the stomach or shoulders are amongst the common side effects of the medication which gnaw away at people’s self worth. So if people are wary of relationships, or have lost the confidence to try to find them, many people turn to sex as a means of connecting. It’s not what you want in the best of all possible worlds but it fills a need.

Many older guys are happy with a warm embrace, or a safe pair of arms around them, or even simple tenderness; all of which add up to that physical closeness which we all crave from cradle to grave. Little wonder then that Viagra and its like gave a new lease of life to people searching for physical affirmation. At least then, the worry of failure is removed and then if you’re rejected, it doesn’t hurt so much and you can move on and try again!

That said, erection pills are not cheap and not everybody can afford them. Put that together with the fact that not everybody likes the potential side effects and you have men who need a physical connection desperately but have to accept that they will need to play a more passive role. Hide your eyes kids if this is getting too embarrassing! You may have noticed that the older the gay group is, the more likely you are to find that partners prefer to be sexually passive. That’s fantastic for the active guys, they’re like kids in a candy store and with Viagra as well, they can take their pick. However, many older guys either don’t have the energy or the potency any more to take the dominant role but they do know they want to be close and satisfy both themselves and their partners sexually; so hey, you do what you have to do!

Sometimes older gay men look at themselves in the mirror and rack their brains for ways to turn back the years, so that they can feel more self-confident in social situations. Dying hair, plastic surgery, dressing young, going to the gym, wearing sexy underwear, even arriving with wads of cash are all well-known and well-worn strategies. Now who am I to say but I really think that guys look better and more attractive if they just be themselves and don’t turn to artificial aids. For every pot there’s a lid and there’s definitely a market for the older guy who just looks after himself and walks into a bar with a little confidence in his demeanor. We really don’t need to try too hard because we’ll be seen through in a blink of an eyelash; you only have to listen to the gossip in a bar to be sure of that one. You don’t have to strut your stuff in peacock feathers then but you don’t have to be afraid of the acres of un-wrinkled and muscular flesh either. Then again, if you feel better trying to change your physical appearance, who’s to say that’s wrong either?

Hopefully, most older guys have found their life partners, or soul-mates, or even good friends before the sand in the hourglass has run out and don’t need to trawl the internet, or the bars any more. There are many older HIV-positive men though, who have lost their partners, live alone and don’t have so many friends around anymore. They very often see their own futures in a very negative light. The TV and internet porn can only provide so much solace and the need for a warm body next to theirs becomes more and more important as they realise they’re unlikely to find another Mr. Right at this stage. A Mr. Right Now is a viable option and when it happens it can provide at least a temporary relief from the daily grind. It can also serve to emphasise the emptiness too but maybe better those fleeting encounters than none at all. 

Never underestimate the drive for intimacy. If you have HIV and are of a certain age, your world can suddenly become very small. I know you won’t believe it for a minute but the next time you curl your lip at an older guy looking needy in the bars, baths or wherever, spare a thought for his motives because before you know it, you’ll be in that situation too.

Disclaimer time: before you jump to conclusions, this article is not autobiographical, although various things do apply to my situation. As an older, gay man with HIV, I’ve watched what my peers do and how they behave over the years and have both learned and ignored the lessons. Also, before somebody gets annoyed that I’m tarring all older men with the same brush, I should point out that nothing I say here applies to everybody; there are always exceptions.

Aug24

Just How Much Can You Take, Before You Can’t Take Anymore?

Friday, 24 August 2012 Written by // Dave R Categories // Activism, Living with HIV, Opinion Pieces, Dave R

Dave R writes...has protest lost its power to change? There’s so much wrong with the world today; so why aren’t young people taking to the streets en masse to do something about it?

Just How Much Can You Take, Before You Can’t Take Anymore?

Sometimes I feel like Larry, Dharma’s father in Dharma and Greg. He was the guy who was forever fighting against ‘the Man’, even though he couldn’t always remember who ‘the Man’ was. Baby Boomers will know who ‘the Man’ was and is but many younger readers may not.

Basically, ‘the Man’ represents authority, the establishment and all systems and people who try to control what you do, how you act and the way you think. Free-thinking people and even those who sat on the fence most of the time in the 1960’s and 1970’s, resisted ‘the Man’ and what they saw as the authorities’ attempts to limit freedoms. Surprisingly, that resistance was often successful! However, this article is not really aimed at my fellow 50 and 60 plussers who, like Larry, look back at those years through their tinted specs but at anybody young enough and with enough energy to still mount the barricades and fight for their rights. 

A call to arms (metaphorically speaking) shouldn’t be necessary. Whatever happened to the mass protest movements that changed the world? Where are the students who used to challenge authority at every turn? Unfortunately, we lost the will to fight; somewhere in the race to join the consumer society and students these days are much more concerned with paying off debts and securing employment. We have never been more controlled, spied on and manipulated, so that many of our freedoms are confined to what our governments and their civil servants say ‘society’ wants and needs. That means that we older butterflies, who’ve been somewhat battered on the wheel of time, need you to come out from behind your soap series, X-boxes and Wii’s and fight some real-time battles on the battlefield of HIV and gay rights. Otherwise before you know it, you’ll be doing as you’re told for the rest of your lives.

The inspiration for this train of thought came from something Michael Yoder said in, ‘Down the Rabbit Hole’, an article here on Positive Lite.com. He said:

“In my youth I was an avid activist... These days, I find that kind of activism tedious. Acting out against violence and stupidity with even more violence and stupidity seems to me to defeat the purpose. To my mind, we have more opportunity to sway people through parody, humour and the traditions of the Heyoka, the Sacred Clown”.

Now please believe me, I’m not criticising what he says; I firmly believe it’s one side of a discussion we all should have. I also agree that physical violence achieves nothing in a society that clamps down on that sort of protest by associating it with a ‘terrorist’ attack on its values. A violent protest can probably never win in 2012 but maybe an angry one still can.

I love Yoder’s next phrase; “We must learn to dance backward in order to move forward” and agree with it wholeheartedly because we should certainly learn from the lessons of the past in order to achieve results in the present. History always repeats itself, so I believe we need to look back at what happened in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’,; see what was successful in the fight for human rights and adapt it to the world of 2012. If the young LGBT people of today could see how protest movements across the world brought about enormous changes: for the black, women’s and gay liberation movements; for workers, whose unions fought for better working conditions and for those who struggled to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons and brought the world back from the brink of world war; they just may be inspired to look more carefully at what’s wrong with today’s world. 

The problem is that these days, in many respects, gay youth believes that they’ve never had it so good. Many young people are not interested in hearing about Stonewall for the zillionth time and for many, HIV and AIDS is the ‘far from my front door’ show that still may bring a shudder but isn’t seen as a huge threat anymore.

So what are the issues today? Why should young LGBT people get up and protest loudly and what should they protest about?

There are still serious issues to protest about as the post 9/11 governments of the western world exert ever more control over their people, quoting the threat of terrorism as the reason. So maybe personal freedom in that sense is worth defending; what do you think? The book, ‘Brave New World’, by Aldous Huxley, published in the 1930’s, warned even then that technology would eventually provide the tools to control society and in the same decade, Orwell’s ‘1984’, has become disturbingly accurate in its predictions. We were warned then but have been lulled into a false sense of security by our growing access to pleasure technologies. Keep the masses entertained and they won’t even think of protesting.

Surely the environment and nuclear energy must also be worth protesting about. Chernobyl and the recent tsunami in Japan, plus the exposures that Greenpeace has brought to light over the years, show we just cannot afford to ignore the threat to the planet’s ecology systems.

Wars are still rampant and guns, bullets and shells, still rip people to shreds; sometimes on TV, over the dinner table but because we’ve seen it all in glorious technicolor in our computer games, it seems to be water off a duck’s back for our young people and worse still, young children. TV newsreel footage has become just another computer game extension. It has lost its power to shock and spur us into protest action and that is shocking in itself...worth an anti-war protest or two?

The recent Occupy movement across the world seemed to signal a resurrection of protest as a means of achieving change. It protests against globalisation and the exploitation of money markets to the benefit of a few and the detriment of the rest. Unfortunately, it has largely disappeared because the authorities adopted a new tactic of letting them protest for a while, while largely ignoring them; reasoning that it would prove more effective than cracking down with force. It worked; the movement, its tents and its protest have faded away like snow in the sun.

Okay, I can sense that readers are yawning and seeing these issues as not really relevant to themselves.

What about the criminalisation of people with HIV then? What about the stigma that forces people right back into the closet because to come out with HIV sets you up for social castigation?

What about the health costs which we’re told are shooting up out of control and mean that many people can’t afford their HIV meds? Why not protest that it’s the costs that should fall, not the patients themselves?

What about the fact that some Islamic governments hang gay people, just for being gay? Or secretly have them ‘removed’ from society, if they turn out to have HIV? Remember Iran’s president said that there are no gay people in Iran...worth a raised hand?

What about African gay people who are hounded, imprisoned and sometimes murdered because of their sexuality? This has been encouraged in some instances by white American, Christian evangelical organisations who whisper in the ears of the men in power. Should this happen?

What about Russian and Eastern European city and national governments that ban any mention of homosexuality and refuse to allow education to take place?

What about demanding that education about homosexuality and LGBT rights become standard in the curriculums of all schools in the Western world? Think it’ll happen? Are you prepared to do something about it?

What about older gay people who end their lives in social isolation and face bullying in nursing homes because of their sexuality. They’re often ill but have to retreat back into the closet in order to survive the bullying in state run care systems? Is that okay with you?

The point I’m trying to make, is that there are plenty of issues to protest about in the modern world. I’m sure you can think of more but are you willing to let all these things happen without raising a finger? The 1960’s and 1970’s may seem prehistoric times but just as today, they were socially turbulent yet so much was changed by people willing to stand up for what they believed. Injustice had to be put right and protests on a large scale were then the only way to do it. Politicians need votes after all. They worked then and they would work now, which is why, this article is aimed at those people who recognise injustice in our world today and are able to do something about it. The greatest enemy of freedom is apathy. Do nothing and nothing will change and that would make every person of my generation very sad indeed. We’re cynical enough; maybe LGBT youth can restore our faith in human nature. As Michael Yoder said at the beginning of this article; violence is not the answer but forcefulness, determination and anger can be powerful tools for change. Remember; genuine protest can never be mistaken for bullshit. Now go ahead, use your i-Phone for good...I dare you.

“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”

- William Faulkner -  

MarketPlace