Newspaper Page Text
CRISIS: Fear in the Age of AIDS
William Masters, Virginia Johnson and Robert
Kolondy have written the book that no one wants to
read. Their recently released bombshell on the
heterosexual transmission of AIDS says what none
of us want to hear The worst case scenario
involving the AIDS epidemic is, in fact, reality.
Scary Stuff.
Crisis: Heterosexual Behavior in the Age of
AIDS was the subject of an immense mainstream
media barrage when it was released three weeks
ago. Newsweek did a cover story. Good
Morning, America spoke at length to the authors.
Response was immediate and negative: critics
called it "fiction," "fantasy," and "wrongheaded."
Researchers questioned MJ&K's data and its
interpretation. Health and social workers accused
the book of creating panic where calm and reason
are called for.
A week and a half after its release, I couldn’t find
Crisis in two of Atlanta's largest book stores. A
third store had moved the volume from the new
nonfiction display to its AIDS shelf. An employee
told me that customers complained vociferously
about the prominent display of what they called
"fiction" "or worse."
I called Grove Press (the publisher) to ask how
the book was selling and question their rationale in
publishing such a controversial manuscript. After
many minutes of being shuffled from one extension
to another, a friendly voice informed me that only
the publisher was speaking to the press about
Crisis. I'm still waiting for the gentleman to call me
back.
That is an interesting contrast to the large and
generally positive reception accorded And the
Band Played On which in many ways contained
disclosures as disquieting as those in Crisis.
The difference of course is that And the Band
author Randy Shilts exposed a dysfunctional
interface between the political and public health
systems of America. Yes, Shilts gave us chilling
portraits of the effect of AIDS on the human body.
The bodies of others. Heart wretching as those
personal snapshots are, they allow most readers to
separate themselves from the PWA's.
Richard Goldstein described the concept in the
December 29 issue of The Village Voice: "Our
image of a person with AIDS defines what we
blame for the epidemic, how we think we must
protect ourselves, whether we want laws to identify,
even isolate carriers."
Anal intercourse, promiscuity and drug use are a
few of the practices that the public generally blames
for AIDS. It's easy for most straight folks to
separate themselves from those and thus from fear.
Gays can apply the salve of safer sex to their AIDS
nightmares.
"Wrong," says Masters, Johnson and Kolodny.
Huge numbers of heterosexuals are infected they
claim. The chance of transfusion borne HIV
infection has been "virtually eliminated" according
to the CDC. MJ&K's stats say that present
screening techniques suggest a 1-in-5,418 chance of
infection if you receive one unit of blood and 1-in-
1,355 if you get four units. Far from "virtually
eliminated."
Condoms aren't safe, they say. You can catch
HIV from a toilet seat and even mutual
masturbation is risky. The authors take care to
document all their claims. And they take almost as
much care to explain the small chance of actually
contracting HIV illness in these and other equally
arcane ways.
But their explanations come after their
allegations and those allegations, unlike what we've
been hearing from the CDC, include acts that all but
the celibate engage in at least occasionally.
Masters, Johnson and Kolodny have effectively
destroyed the barriers that we've erected in order to
protect ourselves from believing that we are not at
risk of HIV infection.
On the other hand, M J&K have suggested that
the only safe sexual scenario is one in which both
partners are proven antibody negative and agree to
remain monogamous. The machinations that they
suggest for first getting accurate antibody tests and
then honestly communicating the results of those
tests are tortured at best The authors even
acknowledge the likelihood of damage to whatever
ardor or trust might exist in the early stages of a
relationship between two (potential) lovers if their
recommendations are followed.
In other words, the authors have destroyed the
barriers that many have used to distance themselves
from the epidemic and then suggested creating,
through widespread antibody testing, a whole new
kind of social division between those who are
antibody positive and those who test
negative. A virus-based class system where, for a
change, the haves become the losers, the outcasts,
the true have-nots.
Equally as frightening: Crisis suggests that
AIDS-related civil rights issues will have to take the
back seat to public health concerns. The authors
call for a scheme of mandatory testing in a number
of populations-pregnant women, those between
ages 15 and 60 admitted to hospitals, convicted
prostitutes, marriage license applicants. Their
conclusion on the hot potato of contact tracing? "In
light of the price that must be paid in human
suffering and lives if this epidemic is not contained
within the next two years, the need for a contact
tracing program seems compelling."
In the end, what seems most compelling is that
Masters, Johnson and Kolodny (whose previous
works have been neither reactionary nor repressive)
appear to be so genuinely alarmed by the future
course of the AIDS epidemic. Crisis is easy to
criticize on many counts, including some that can
easily be categorized as homophobic. And there’s
the very important and real dearth of discussion of
funding and research in Crisis. But the fact that it
comes from respected researchers who have never
previously shown any need to grind their socio-
sexual axes in public makes this frightening
scenario difficult to ignore.
If the authors' data and projections prove correct,
they’ll likely be hailed as heroes for having had the
courage to speak the truth while it may still have a
positive effect on the epidemic.
And if their facts are fictional? Crisis may
attract the attention of a large number of
heterosexuals in a way that most gays learned only
by actually losing a friend or lover to the disease.
Neither scenario is attractive, but the former seems
far less painful. The possibility that fundamentalists
will use the book's conclusions to support their
repressive agendas is a frightening one. We can
only hope that M, J&K's willingness to openly
discuss sexuality will discourage this unholy
alliance.
If the authors are wrong, their reputations will be
tarnished. In view of their pioneering work
bringing light to a subject traditionally enshrouded
in fear and misconception that would be a shame.
Far worse a possibility is that their conclusions in
Crisis are accurate.
- Gary Kaupman
Swindall, Cont.
Continued from Front Page
Swindall, and thought that the term "sexual
orientation" would probably be changed to
homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual," to avoid
terms that would cover "abusive" sexual practices.
He said that he was optimistic for the bill’s passage,
but that it was not certain.
Quoting from the Declaration of Independence,
local lesbian activist Jean Hoffman attacked
Swindall, demanding to know if according to the
Declaration's assertion that governments are
instituted to protect the rights of life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, he should be removed
from office. She was reffering to his record of
negative votes on civil rights issues.
Swindall offered to interpret the Declaration of
Independence "in the context of the Constitution"
for Hoffman. He stated that the
VOICES
How Do You Feel About Women-Only Space?
"Why not? It should exist without threat, although I wouldn't seek it out"
Anonymous
North Georgia
"I think it's very sad. Lesbians are trying to get recognition for being a minority and
they're seeking in the wrong direction. I'm not a person who believes in segregation."
Mickel Graham
Clarkston, Georgia
"I have no problems at all with women-only space. I support male-only and women-
only space if the intent is to grow from that experience."
Bruce Rose
Atlanta, Georgia
"I don't have any problems with it. I think that women-only events need to be clearly
identified as such and should not be codified. In the case of Deidre McCalla concert, the
language should have specifically stated that it was a women-only event."
Sabrina Sojourner
Atlanta, Georgia
"founders...acknowledged that our rights come from
a creator god, and that creator god established certain
absolutes, among... (which) were the Ten
Commandments.” Citing the "Judeo-Christian
heritage of this country's judicial system," Swindall
continued to say that "homosexuality is a sin, as
opposed to an attitude that you basically
inheriL...Homosexuality is a deviation from the
norm." i
The Representative acknowledged that
"individuals have the right to deviate from the norm,
(but) they do not have the right to ask society to
change its standards. I respect your right to say,1
don't want to discriminate.' I respect other
individuals' rights to say 1 do want to discriminate. I
do not want my children to be taught by someone
who is an avowed homosexual who says that
homosexuality is in effect something that I have no
control over.'"
As his response became more heated, Swindall
declared, "I do not think it is right to have teachers,
as role models for our children, who say that
homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. I think it
is sin, and I think that it is important that our
government acknowledge, as it has historically, that
that is an act that individuals deliberately choose!"
Referring to the Declaration of Independence,
Swindall conjured up the specter of natural law, and
polled the increasingly hostile onlookers. The
majority of those present indicated that they agreed
with Swindall when he said, "From time eternal,
we have recognized homosexuality as an un-natural
act! Why? Because a natural god says the purpose
of sex is procreation. If you look at homosexuality,
it says that that is in fact not the purpose of sex."
"You have the right to go to the ballot box. But
so do the people who think that homosexuality is an
unnatural act And I bet, that if you check the
population of the 4th District of Georgia, the vast
majority still believe homosexuality is an un-natural
act, and that when they elected me, they elected me
to represent that viewpoint in Congress."
Swindall dismissed the recent victory of LEGAL
(Legislate Equality for Gays And Lesbians) in the
Democratic caucuses in Georgia, and said "There is
no question that if you are a homosexual then the
Democratic party is your party." He publicly
challenged whoever his democratic rival might be
in the coming elections to publicly declare his
support for "homosexual rights" in a mainstream
forum. "I hope ya'll take that issue (lesbian/gay
rights) and elevate il I hope in the next campaign
you say the Democratic candidate has come to our
community, run ads in our newspapers saying that
he is for homosexual rights."
"I think that those are targeted campaigns, that
keep those issues confined to those areas that
people want it confined to. HI gladly debate that
issue in the context of the entire fourth district of
Georgia (and) the Declaration of Independence," he
said.
As the meeting dispersed, a woman who had
spoken against the proposed extension of Georgia
400 and demanded that Swindall clarify his
position on the matter, approached the group of gay
men and lesbians. According to Hoffman, "she
offered us encouragement mainly, but it's a prime
example of potential coalition members when we
throw him (Swindall) out of office in November."
-Chris Duncan
Men for Women
The latest salvo has been fired in the ongoing
battle over woman-only space. Protesters James
Braden, Peter Dakutis, and Bruce Rose were in
front of Charis Books and More, Thursday evening
the 24th, demonstrating in favor of women's right
to meet without the presence of men. The three
men were responding to an ongoing Atlanta
controversy, most recently inflamed by a protest at
a Alix Dobkin concert Dobkin's concerts are often
women-only events.
Atlanta Gay Center member, Michael Wilson
led the group of protestors at the Dobkin conceit
under the name People Against Sexism. Braden,
Dakutis, and Rose demonstrated under the name
Gays in the Center for More Women-Only Space.
Their statement said, in part, "We support
women-only space and men-only space when it is
used in a positive manner to facilitate personal
growth.... We find it ironic and reprehensible that
gay men would disapprove of women's
opportunities to claim space for themselves. Such
denial is out and out sexism."
"This sexism is really no different from
homophobia or racism, for all extend from the
same roots. It is shameful and perverse that gay
men would behave the same as homophobes and
racists who have enjoyed privileges for years and
who begin to feel threatened when the oppressed
group begins to assert its basic rights and
freedoms," the statement continued.
Pam Martin, of ALFA (the Atlanta Lesbian
Feminist Alliance), saw Braden et al before going
to the Charis meeting. She called their work
"wonderful" and said that she hoped they would
take their protest to the Atlanta Gay Center.
According to Martin, they have not been willing to
support women-only space.
Referring to an interview with Wilson that
appeared in a recent issue of The News, she
described his assertions against women-only space
as "misogynisi false, and misleading."
When contacted for commeni Wilson said "I
don't think segregation is a righl or a form of
elevated thinking... J think it is real disturbing. I
think our statement is quite clear on the matter. I
guess there is no accounting for casual thinking."
-Chris Duncan
Page 3