Toronto Cops To Undergo Sensitivity Training After Gay Bathhouse Raid

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/121704pussyTO.htm

All Toronto police, from the chief to cadets, will undergo LGBT sensitivity training and the force will pay $350,000 (Cdn) to end a lawsuit over raid on a lesbian bathhouse night in 2000 a Toronto newspaper reports.

The Globe and Mail reports that the settlement has been agreed to by both the Police Services Board and the lesbians charged in the raid. but it must gain final approval by the judge in the case.

Police entered the Club Toronto in the early hours of Sept. 15, 2000 during a lesbian event known as the "Pussy Palace." More than 100 women, many naked, were in the building at the time. The officers, all male, spent 90 minutes walking through the facility in Toronto's gay village, opening doors to private cubicles and questioning the women.

[Moloch]

1. I don't see a problem with this at all....

While some raids on bathhouses may well indeed be motivated by homophobia, the vast majority of them are menaces to public health.

One of the few real early efforts to stop AIDS was to just down bathhouses in New York and San Francisco. What did people do? Complained about it and said their rights were violated. Staged massive demonstrations calling the actions homophobic. This, along with the apathy from the reagan administration are the two reasons why this horrible disease is as prevalent as it is today.

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. damkira...

...I first must ask you, if you in fact realize that there has never been one reported case of AIDS spreading through the lesbian community, via sexual relations with other women?

Secondly I must ask you if you are in fact aware that the majority with in the LGBT community, both male and female will ask a new partner when was the last time they were tested and the results of those tests? Many couples will not become intimate until both partners have had a test done.

Now I must ask you, how do you think you would feel if you had a female realative you happened to be very close to, who happened to attending this lesbian function on this particular night? And you do need to take into consideration the fact that even though the police claimed to have given ample opportunity for the women to dress, that actual reports from the women themselves claimed the opposite. And you also need to remember that every police officer attending on this particular night were male.

We had a gay club here in Melbourne many years ago called Tasty Nightclub. On the night of 7th August 1994 there were over 400 people attending this club (both male and female patrons.) On this particular night the police decided to raid the club. During the raid ALL patrons were subjected to a strip search and then forced to stand with one another naked, with their hands above their heads, in what turned to out to be a gruelling three hours long.

The police claimed the raid was linked to their war on drugs. However, because of the direct violation on peoples right to privacy, among other violations against the law the police were forced to pay over four million dollars in compensation.

The police also had to begin a new liason branch of their department which dealt souly with mending the relations between the LGBT community and the Victorian police.

Now ten years later, many police officers (including straight people) march in full dress uniform during Melbourne's pride march, as a sign of respect towards the queer community.

What the police did both in Canada and in Mebourne was a direct violation on the privacy laws. Everyone is entitled to the right to privacy, and just because someone happens to be queer doesn't abolish those laws.

When I first heard about this happening in Canada I was sickened. Today as I sat here reading this and being reminded of it, I became sickened again.

Violating peoples right to privacy isn't the answer to stopping the AIDS epidemic that is sweeping the world, not just the U.S. Spending more money on research instead of wars and aiming to find a cure is what will bring this horrible sickness to an end.

[Moloch]

8. Yes I am aware of that....

I have often said that if AIDS is a wrath from God, then lesbians must be his chosen people. I understand that the bathhouse which was raided was for lesbians.

Maybe there were alcohol violations at the club? I just think we shouldn't be so quick to cry homophobia.

[foreigncorrespondent]

14. But, I am not crying homophobia at all!

I am actually crying about the violations against a person right to privacy laws.

But, these cops do need a class in sensitivity no matter what. If this was a female gym full of straight women, the complaints would be a lot different. But because it is a bunch of "dirty queers" then, people will sit back like nothing happened and defend the cops for breaking the laws the are actually sworn to protect.

[Zep]

2. Sensitivity training for cops is a crock of ...

... well you know what it's a crock of.

The cops say "Yes boss", pass the multiple choice test, and then ...


... they are more sensitive.

Right! :eyes: :eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

4. Cannot say that I don't think bathhouses aren't risks to public health n/t

[renaissanceguy]

5. It's not the bathhouses, per se....

it's the people that go to the bathhouses. If people play safe (their choice), then it's to the benefit of public health. Mind you, plenty of unsafe sex happens outside the bathhouses and inside the bedroom.

So, raiding or abolishing bathhouses will not solve the problem. While I personally am opposed to them (I wouldn't go to one), I won't deny someone's right to go to one.

If we agree to these raids, what will be next...overturning Lawrence v. Texas so the sex police can make sure we're playing safe (or nor having sex at all) inside our own homes?

----------------------------------------------
Buy liberal, anti-Bush, and other outspoken political bumper stickers, buttons, and shirts at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[Brian_Expat]

6. Hey, I am a big supporter of civil rights, don't get me wrong

I just get tired of bathhouse attendees hitching their caboose to our wagon. In my experience, most bathhouse attendees are closeted and tend to vote Republican -- but are instant liberal Democrats when the police come to bust them.

I also think that the gay community needs to emphasize a little responsibility (outside of government enforcement) within the community itself. HIV is increasingly showing an ability to transmit even within "safer sex," and the values of monogamous partnership and not fucking strangers have never been stronger.

It is NOT "judgmental" or "sex-negative" to note that promsicuity (even "safer" promiscuity) with strangers in bathhouses and circuit parties is dangerous and spreads all matter of STDS -- HIV and otherwise. I wish some prominent gay leaders would stand up and say that, and be willing to take the flack that would inevitably hit from the "if it feels good, do it" and "it's not my responsibility to tell someone my HIV status, it's all about fun" crowd.

[queerart]

7. I Couldn't Agree With You More.......

I will add however, some young guys are infected the first time out of the gate (so to speak).......

Because they are in "Love", and their partner knowing full well of their own hiv status, devoid of concern.... infects them......

"The Candy Store Syndrome" really does need to be addressed by our Gay elders....

But is there really anyone with in the community that Queers will take seriously on such a topic?

Sadly, more often than not the thought process of Queers on the Circuit is 3D........

Dick
Drugs
and Drinking:( :( :(

[SnowBack]

9. Oh please....

Closing the bathhouses did absolutely nothing... Gay men who wanted to have sex went other places... and found people in bars... So now that the baths are closed in San Francisco and New York, there are no new cases of AIDS right? Get real...

The Gay community needs to take problems like crystal meth seriously if they really want to stop new AIDS infections... It's the speed addicts that are becoming infected... They get high and no longer care about safe sex... It AIN'T the baths...

The Lesbian bathhouse was a special event in Toronto... The police could have told the owners to ask everyone to leave... Or they could have sent in female police at least... Instead, they sent a bunch of male cops in to harass the women who were there...

This was a PRIVATE club and event... This was harassment... pure and simple.

[queerart]

11. Huh?

Too much coffee?

Or did you not take the time to read my post?

I said they (Gay Men) THINK 3-D

D-I-C-K-S

D-R-U-G-S

D-R-I-N-K-I-N-G

what part of that did you not get?

Now to be fair there (ARE TWO FUCKING CONVERSATIONS GOING ON HERE), so it's up to the (posters to read... and follow)....

[SnowBack]

13. I'm not sure how my post ended up following yours... apologies...

Some coffee would be good around now...

And I agree on the 3D stuff - although I think the Drugs and Drinking are what causes them to get their Dicks in trouble :)

[queerart]

15. Thanks My Friend....

:hi:

[Brian_Expat]

17. Hmmmm

The Gay community needs to take problems like crystal meth seriously if they really want to stop new AIDS infections... It's the speed addicts that are becoming infected... They get high and no longer care about safe sex... It AIN'T the baths...

When I lived in Toronto, my GP had many of the local bathhouse regulars as clients. He told me that about 2/3 of them were HIV+.

Supporting and encouraging environments of casual, promiscuous sex is detrimental to everyone's health and the emotional and health of those who are participating in the orgies. Sorry, it's the truth, and it's not "homophobic" to say so -- the same applies to heterosexual promiscuity.

[SnowBack]

19. Never said it was homophobic... just your opinion.. not fact.

When I lived in Toronto, my GP had many of the local bathhouse regulars as clients. He told me that about 2/3 of them were HIV+.

If you don't want to go to the baths, don't go. HIV doesn't "attack" at the baths... it comes from unsafe sex. Period.


Supporting and encouraging environments of casual, promiscuous sex is detrimental to everyone's health and the emotional and health of those who are participating in the orgies.

Cite? Otherwise it's just your opinion.


Sorry, it's the truth, and it's not "homophobic" to say so -- the same applies to heterosexual promiscuity.

No, it's the "truth" as YOU see it. Otherwise known as your OPINION.

[Moloch]

20. HIV "attacks" anywhere where people have frequent,

anonymous sex.

I would imagine that this occurs most frequently in establishments that exist solely for this purpouse.

[SnowBack]

21. No, HIV "attacks" when people don't use protection

It's a virus, not a punishment against people who have anonymous sex.

People who think they are somehow safe because they don't have anonymous sex can get just as infected as someone who does.

[Brian_Expat]

24. It's not "safe" sex, it's "safer" sex

And anal sex with a condom still has a higher risk of transmission than oral sex without a condom -- and I know several people who have seroconverted as a result of oral sex. You probably do, too, even if you don't know it.

Eventually, enough anonymous anal sex with a condom WILL give you HIV. It's just a matter of time and frequency.

[SnowBack]

26. So no cites, just opinion...

Surprise...

:eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

31. I've posted several facts, you've posted none

Seems like your burden of proof for others is far more significant than the burden you place for yourself.

[SnowBack]

34. Saying "I feel it's BAD" isn't a fact.

This is getting old... Like in other threads you've participated in, I hope people look up the facts instead of taking your opinions as fact...

[Brian_Expat]

36. FACT: Safer sex does not mean safe sex

FACT #2: The more people you have sex with over time, protected or unprotected, the greater your chance of catching a debilitating or fatal STD.

[iconoclastNYC]

47. Again anecdotal evidence is not SCIENTIFIC

You can't draw a conclusion based on knowing a few people. How do you know they are being honest? Do you think they want to admit to something as stupid as having unprotected anal sex?

There has not been any respected peer-reviewed scientifically valid study that showed that unprotected oral sex is a risk factor worth worrying about. Even less risk when there is no semen involved and your teeth and gums are in good shape.

If it was easy to get HIV from unprotected oral sex there would be no gay people. There is a lot more oral sex going on than anal sex and NOBODY uses condoms. You ever taste latex?

[Brian_Expat]

50. You cannot read

If it was easy to get HIV from unprotected oral sex there would be no gay people.

It's not necessarily "easy," but it has happened commonly enough for transmission. Go to any HIV support group, there will be a few guys who have caught HIV from unprotected oral sex. Have unprotected oral sex often enough with different individuals with murky health and you greatly increase your chance of catching it.

There was a study conducted recently which proved that HIV can infect lymph nodes and glands in the mouth and throat -- greatly increasing the perceived risk of catching HIV from unprotected oral sex with an HIV+ person.

HIV also isn't the only STD. LGV can be quite nasty and can kill you -- and you cannot protect yourself from that. You can get herpes with or without a condom, even from frottage. HPV can lead to anal cancer and transmits without a condom. The latest drug-resistant syphilis can also be transmitted while using protection and can kill you if not treated promptly.

In this day and age of drug-resistant illnesses, the Peter-Pan promiscuity of days gone by will result in compromised health, plain and simple. It's stupid and certainly not something to celebrate, sorry. Happy-go-lucky might make you feel good, you might enjoy getting your rocks off for a while, and you will probably continue to get defensive about it, but it doesn't change the demographics and facts -- promiscuity, especially with anonymous partners, will result in your health deteriorating over time.

[iconoclastNYC]

61. Risks are everywhere, exxagerating them is harmful

If you are this afraid of people getting HIV from oral sex then i hope you urge everyone never to get in a car...because there is a much better chance of getting killed or maimed behind in a car.

Spreading irrational fear of how easy it is to get HIV will lead people to think it is hopeless and just go for it all and deal with HIV when they catch it.

Read this....

http://www.avert.org/orlsx.htm

Various scientific studies have been performed around the world to try and document and study instances of HIV transmission through oral sex. A programme in San Francisco studied 198 people, nearly all gay or bisexual men. The subjects stated that they had only had oral sex for a year, from six months preceding the six-month study to its end. 20 per cent of the study participants, 39 people, reported performing oral sex on partners they knew to be HIV positive. 35 of those did not use a condom and 16 reported swallowing cum. No-one became HIV positive during the study. Due to the low number of unprotected serodiscordant pairings, all that can be said is that there was a less than 2.8 per cent chance of infection through oral sex over a year. In 2000, a different San Francisco study of gay men who had recently acquired HIV infection found that 7.8 per cent of these infections were attributed to oral sex. However, the results of the study have since been called into question due to the reliability of the participant's data.

In June 2002, a study conducted amongst 135 HIV-negative Spanish heterosexuals, who were in a sexual relationship with a person who was HIV-positive, reported that over 19,000 instances of unprotected oral sex had not lead to any cases of HIV transmission. The study also looked at contributing factors that could effect the potential transmission of HIV through oral sex. They monitored viral load and asked questions such as whether ejaculation in the mouth occurred and how good oral health was. Amongst HIV-positive men, 34 per cent had ejaculated into the mouths of their partners. Viral load levels were available for 60 people in the study, 10 per cent of whom had levels over 10,000 copies. Nearly 16 per cent of the HIV-positive people had CD4 counts below 200. The study, conducted over a ten year period between 1990 and 2000, adds to the growing number of studies which suggest varying levels of risk of HIV transmission from oral sex when compared to anal or vaginal intercourse.

At the 4th International Oral AIDS Conference held in South Africa, the risk of transmission through oral sex was estimated to be approximately 0.04 per cent per contact. This percentage figure is a lot lower than the two American figures, because this figure is a risk per contact percentage, whereas the other figures are percentage risks over much longer time periods. Oral sex is still regarded as a low-risk sexual activity in terms of HIV transmission, but only when more work is done will we be clearer as to the risks of oral sex. group.

[Brian_Expat]

64. Another argument that downplays the REAL RISKS involved

"Risks are everywhere."

Yes, they are. But there are smart risks, and stupid ones.

And you want to talk about risks from oral sex? Check out this study:

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104575.htm

The AIDS virus quickly spreads from the mouth to the rest of the body, a monkey study shows.

The finding means a new hurdle for AIDS vaccines. It suggests they'll have to work quickly and efficiently to prevent HIV infection.

The finding also raises new questions about the safety of oral sex, suggests study leader Donald L. Sodora, PhD, assistant professor of internal medicine, infectious diseases, and microbiology at the University of Texas Southwest Medical Center in Dallas.

"We have highlighted unappreciated entry points for the AIDS virus," Sodora tells WebMD. "The study shows that oral exposure to HIV is a way a person can hypothetically be infected. We know babies get infected from HIV in breast milk. So it is not a big stretch to think semen could infect you orally. ... I don't think this is a safer way to have sex."

Damn sex-negative scientists!

Go to an HIV support group sometime. Ask who there got HIV from oral sex and only oral sex. Several people will raise their hands.

Oh, but they don't count. They're inconvenient.

[iconoclastNYC]

72. Semen = 1 tsp, Breast milk = pints and pints

Ever think of that?

How many people even ingest semen? I'm guessing not a lot.

That is if the person doing the cocksucking is smart, just like you'd have insist on condom use if you were smart.

The problem is people think it won't happen, (education needed) to them or they think they already have (testing needed), or they think its just a matter of time (stop spreading irrational fear of transmission via oral sex)

But you want to bundle everyone up and ignore what is being done to stop the spread of the disease and just spread hatred of people who have more sex that you think is appropriate. You are contributing to the problem with you complusion to spread hate.

[Brian_Expat]

74. lol -- you didn't even read the study

The primates in question were given one eye-dropper-full of breast milk with HIV.

The amount of milk was less than the amount of semen in a typical ejaculation, and the concentration of virus in the milk was much lower than in the average HIV+ male's semen.

But keep digging. Keep ignoring. Keep insisting it's all a homophobic conspiracy. For God's sake, don't actually consider the facts as they emerge. Facts are dangerous after all -- they counter dangerous myths.

[iconoclastNYC]

76. Quit putting words in my mouth

I didn't say anything about homophobia or conspiracy and you are totally ignoring my point about fatalism and irrational fear peddling.

But you do that because you'd rather accuse me of doing things I haven't.

And guess what a monkey isn't a human, and things that happen in the lab don't always happen in real life.

And the thing is DON'T INGEST SEMEN.

You keep trying to make it seem like everyone who has sex more than you is reckless and thats wrong.

[Brian_Expat]

78. You didn't read the study

You're talking about "gallons and gallons." You're ignoring the risk factor and deliberately so, while going on a personal attack.

You're part of the problem, and not the solution, I'm afraid.

[iconoclastNYC]

83. Your study is meaningless

Its based on monkey in a labratory and breastmilk.

Show me a study done on humans. I have shown you one.

[Brian_Expat]

87. Yep, any science that goes against your superstitions is meaningless. n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SnowBack]

27. Not Liar, just moralistic and sex negative

But, I don't expect anything different at this point...

:eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

48. "Sex negative"

Seems to be very similar to "anti-American." In other words, interrupt an irrational and dangerous reverie with a bit of common sense and you're suddenly a hateful, evil person to be labelled -- be you opposed to Bush's idiotic and dangerous adventures in Iraq, or opposed to the idiotic and dangerous promiscuity in urban gay culture that's leading to soaring HIV, syphilis, herpes, and LGV infections.

I'm all for compassion and sexual freedom, but I'm still going to call a spade a spade. Go promiscuous, pick up strangers, do as you like, but don't get all shocked when you get a nasty and often incurable STD.

[iconoclastNYC]

56. What causes STDs in the straight community?

And why aren't you railing against that?

[Brian_Expat]

59. The same thing that causes STDs in the gay community

And I don't need to rail against that because heterosexuals have institutions that allow them to choose either sexual responsiblity or Peter-Panism.

Gay people, on the other hand, don't have instituions like registered partnerships, immigration rights, partner health care and family law to protect the majority who aren't interested in getting high on crystal meth and heading down to the Manhole for some hot action with whoever's hanging out there.

[iconoclastNYC]

62. You just exxude hatred

Ok, so its fine for straights to spread disease but gays who don't have sex the way you like get to be spanked because they don't have equal rights?

Interesting.

You keep gays that have sex with 'strangers' with drug use and reckless behavior and thats not fair.

[Brian_Expat]

65. You're tiresome

Playing the homophobia card will get you nowhere buck-o. I've been fighting discrimination against gays my entire life.

Also, comparing straight sexual irresponsibility to gay sexual irresponsibility isn't going to fly either. I'm not straight, I'm gay, and it's the gay community that's being ravaged, disproportionately, by disease and drug use -- largely enabled by the sorts of knee-jerk arguments you're making. I'm fighting for my community against people from BOTH the right wing and the Peter Pan wing who are destroying it and its potential with a lethal cocktail of lies and risk-creating activity.

Will I fight that? You're damn right I will. And I will continue to fight against the idea that anonymous and frequent sex with strangers has no real risks. The massive increases in STIs in our community is a direct refutation of that murderous myth.

[iconoclastNYC]

67. You dont get it

You are focusing on a small minority of people who are having sex in clubhouses and spreading disinformation about the risk of oral sex and by doing so you are going to get people to think it is hopeless and so they might as well : "enjoy it"

[Brian_Expat]

70. I'm focusing on promiscuity

And as for "disinformation" about oral sex, I've just posted the most recent studies which show vectors for transmission.

You're the one in denial -- and encouraging people to take needless risks with their health in order to perpetuate the idea that, in your words, gay men are forced into promiscuity by "hormones" and "culture." And that, my friend, is a homophobic position. Period.

[iconoclastNYC]

79. Now who's playing the Homophobia card?

You posted a study, done on monkeys, in a lab. How about something in the real world, with real gay men, like the study I posted? Oh yeah that doens't support your POV so you ignore it.

[Brian_Expat]

81. I posted a study that demonstrated that oral sex transmission is high risk

I also invited you to head to any HIV support centre and ask who seroconverted as a result of oral sex, which you referred to as "anecdotal."

So I've provided both qualitative and quantitative proof of my contention, and you're still in denial because it clashes with your Peter Pan approach.

[iconoclastNYC]

85. Asking individuals how they got it is not scientific is....

Asking individuals how they got it is not scientific is....it is anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers

It is not scientific.

You did produce a study done on monkeys with breast milk in a lab. That is not qualitative and quantitative.

I'm not in denial. I have studies that show that it is a low risk. You maintain it is a high risk which there is no evidence to support. None. Zero. Every source says oral sex is low risk. Prove me wrong.

[Brian_Expat]

86. You're not interested in science

I provided science, you clapped your hands over your ears and shouted "la la la la la." I provided qualitative research, and you're also ignoring and shouting that down.

There's quite a bit of research that demonstrates the HIV risk from oral sex is higher than typically thought -- and ever increasing. But that doesn't matter because it disrupts your fantasy world where you can suck off a dozen people a week and be completely without risk at all.

I'm finished with you, you're welcome to live your life but I will continue to post the facts to combat your odd theological devotion to false safety.

[iconoclastNYC]

46. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific

It is no less surprising that a lot of gay men seeking medical treatment are going to have HIV, sick people go to the doctor!

You can't legislate morality. Shut down the bathhouse and they'll go on the Internet looking for it and there you can't expose them to HIV prevention outreach, free on the spot testing, etc.

You will never get people to stop having sex. You can only get them to make better decisions on HOW they have sex.

The sex clubs should be compelled by law to have weekly on the spot rapid result HIV testing differt times of the day. Most people who are transmitting HIV don't know they have it. And having the testing there at the club would be a great idea. Testing is the most important aspect in the fight against AIDS. Rapid result testing is a huge advancement and it needs to be EVERYWHERE.

No more HIV drug direct to consumer ads where they make being HIV positive seem like merely an inconvenience, i.e. hunky healthy looking guy has just climbed Kilimanjaro, "thank you Squnivir!"

[Brian_Expat]

63. You don't accept the science, that's the problem

Every study that's been done in the last three years shows that the risk of HIV infection from "safer" sex is higher than previously thought.

A recent study showed that the concentration of HIV in rectal fluids is extremely high, posing massive risks for "tops" (who were considered lower risk before).

Another study with primates showed that oral infection is easy to get and that the mucous membranes and lymph nodes of the mouth and throat are easily infected by HIV, which quickly spreads from there.

A third study demonstrated that condoms rupture, split or break an average of one in 20 times, which means that, in practice, sex with condoms is "unsafe" an average of one in twenty times.

But none of these matter to you because you want to be convinced that sexual irresponsibility is safe and A-OK and the only option. And nothing will convince you of that, short of getting some serious STD yourself.

[SnowBack]

10. Cite please...

In my experience, most bathhouse attendees are closeted and tend to vote Republican -- but are instant liberal Democrats when the police come to bust them.

Well, in my experience at Toronto baths, most of the men are openly Gay and none of them voted Republican...

And what do men have to do with a bathhouse raid on WOMEN?

:eyes:

and


"HIV is increasingly showing an ability to transmit even within "safer sex,"

I'd like to see some proof of that from a reputable source...

[Brian_Expat]

16. Heh

d what do men have to do with a bathhouse raid on WOMEN?

I didn't say it did, though I'd wager there's quite a bit of STD spreading going on in women's baths as well.

"HIV is increasingly showing an ability to transmit even within "safer sex,"

I'd like to see some proof of that from a reputable source...

Simple. Just look at the soaring rate of infections, plus the increasing number of people who have seroconverted as a result of oral sex or sex with a condom. In fact, sex with a condom is now considered higher risk than it was a few years ago.

Eventually, promiscuity will kill you, or at the very least, damage your health.

[SnowBack]

18. Guess that means you have no proof

Where are the "increasing number of people who have seroconverted as a result of oral sex or sex with a condom"?

In fact, sex with a condom is now considered higher risk than it was a few years ago.

I call bullshit unless you can prove it.


Eventually, promiscuity will kill you, or at the very least, damage your health.

Again, I call bullshit unless you can prove it.

[Brian_Expat]

23. You go ahead and go barebacking and baresucking in a sex club then

If you're convinced it's so "safe." In the mean time, I'll be calling YOUR bullshit -- the phoney "security" that's resulting in soaring rates of HIV and other STDs like syphilis in the gay community.

Many of us aren't "if it feels good do it" hedonists, and if you think that promiscuous anonymous sex with strangers isn't a major contributor to the growth in STDs, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Are you an AIDS denialist too? Because your rhetoric sounds just like the ACT UP San Francisco people who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

[SnowBack]

28. Never had bareback sex, never will...

But since you think all men having anonymous sex must be barebacking, there's no point in explaining that to you...

Still no cites I see...

[Brian_Expat]

30. Anonymous sex puts you at risk, protected OR unprotected

The question is simply the degree of risk -- high (unprotected) or medium (protected).

[SnowBack]

33. More unsubstantiated opinions....

Of course...

[Brian_Expat]

37. You're in denial dude. n/t

[SnowBack]

41. I don't live in a fantasy world... I believe in SCIENCE - n/t

[Brian_Expat]

42. Sure you do. N/T

[iconoclastNYC]

49. You should work for the BUSH administration

OK you are some gay dude and you've been told that even having sex with a condom is only slightly less risky than having sex with a condom.

Condoms are really annoying. If its only slightly less risky to use them, why bother?

Gay men are not being badgered by girlfriends to settle down and knock them up and start a family. Gay men are having sex with other men who are horny as they are unlike women who are sexually repressed by the culture or are getting used as sex objects by their men with no regard for their satisfaction. Gay men always both get off.

My point is gay men are wired to be promiscuous. Its hormonal and its social. And just because you think it is immoral it isn't going to change.

Spreading lies about the effectiveness of condoms will backfire and increase HIV rates.

I wonder how much your views are colored by jealousy.

[Brian_Expat]

52. What horseshit

gay men are wired to be promiscuous. Its hormonal and its social.

It's certainly not "hormonal," and as for "social," you must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Hey, clap your hands over your ears and insist that dangerous living is "the way you are programmed." Scream to the hills about what a bigot I am for noting that promiscuity will destroy your health over time. Stamp your foot and wheedle about how awful the facts are. Call me a Republican, for all I care. It doesn't change the facts.

The "sex with strangers" lifestyle is literally killing us. Even Larry Kramer agrees. All this urban inner-city gay "culture" of getting tweaked and circuit parties and "if it feels good, do it" has resulted in meteoric increases in the rates of all STDs amongst gay people, including HIV.

You're not an automaton. You can change your behaviour, if you so desire, to deal with the risk. Your excuses about "culture" and "hormones" are bunk, and strike me as profoundly homophobic -- the idea that gay men are just sexual beasts who cannot control themselves and view other men as little other than pieces of meat to be fucked and forgotten before the next conquest comes along.

I prefer viewing people as people, rather than as shells to be cast aside after a couple of minutes of back-alley blowjob. The latter "culture" is a CHOICE.

[iconoclastNYC]

66. Here you again are point out the most extreme cases to smear

Of whats going on. You think that I'm defending tweakers and bareback sex, people having sex in back allies. You just keep bringing that up just to inflame.

I'm so glad you can bring up these types of people to try to make sex seems so wrong and disgusting and make it out to be that everyone does this.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't overstate the risks of having sex and instead focus on something that will make a difference, testing and education and condoms.

You just want to be judgmental and demonize people and then when you get called out on it insinuate I'm defending people who are drug addicts and people who are clearly being wreckless.

And your point of view serves no purpose but to make yourself feel superior to everyone else who disagrees with you because they are all getting tweaked out and going to the manhole to get some public sex.

[Brian_Expat]

68. You're getting personal

And the reason why is because you don't have any argument based in fact. So the fact that I'm noting the dangerous of drugs and promiscuity annoys you. You tried the homophobic card and that fell down flat, so now you're accusing me of some superiority complex.

I really don't care what you think of me personally. But I will not let the lie that anonymous promiscuity is low-risk perpetuate, because it destroys my community, and I will fight for my community with every fibre of my being.

[iconoclastNYC]

73. God help your community

Because you are misrepresenting what I'm saying, you completely ignore any fact I've made, and you are saying that I'm equating this to homophobia, but you are:

-saying basically there is no such thing as safer sex
-overstating the risks which will lead to fatalism and an increase in the higher risk activities in at-risk populations
-equating promiscuity with drug use, unsafe sex, and public sex
-spreading shame of sexuality which drive people underground and away from the outreach efforts

Why don't you respond to any of these assertions? I bet i know why.

[Brian_Expat]

77. You haven't presented any facts

And your fatalism argument is bogus, because you're presenting two alternatives that are extremes -- either a life of celibacy or a life of extreme promiscuity.

Most gay men can find satisfaction in responsible sexual activity that doesn't equate to anonymous sex with strangers in sex-oriented venues. Monogamous relationships with individuals of similar serostatus are, simply, the safest form of relationship out there -- considerably safer than fucking strangers.

You can choose a promiscuous path and decry monogamy as "assimilationist," but with every stranger you have sex with, you increase your risk of contracting a debilitating condition. Those are the facts, and they're true.

Presenting the facts is not "fatalism." I find your argument that "gay culture and gay hormones require promiscuity and drug use" and that we cannot live any other way to be far more fatalistic.

[iconoclastNYC]

82. Oral sex : LOW risk, Anal sex HIGH risk.

I am not offering two alternatives. Quit putting words in my mouth. People choose how much sex they want and you'll never change that, no matter how much you demonize them with talk of public sex and drug use.

I'm saying people like you who overstate the risk just so they can feel justified in damning people who have more sex than they think is correct are harming the cause of HIV prevention.

"At the 4th International Oral AIDS Conference held in South Africa, the risk of transmission through oral sex was estimated to be approximately 0.04 per cent per contact." -snip-

"Oral sex is still regarded as a low-risk sexual activity in terms of HIV transmission, but only when more work is done will we be clearer as to the risks of oral sex."

Meanwhile you go on and spread this chicken little position that you are going to get HIV from oral sex and then people just think, well I'm going to get it from oral sex anyway so i might as well ditch the condoms. And there is no doubt that ANAL sex without a condom is 100s of times more risky than oral sex.

So keep misstating my POV and ignoring the facts I raise and telling me I'm not raising facts. Its helping my case.

[Brian_Expat]

88. LOW Risk x High Frequency = High Risk over time. n/t

[Moloch]

12. Very well put...

Thank You!

[renaissanceguy]

25. A couple more thoughts here...

Brian poses an important challenge for the gay community, which is emphasizing monogamous relationships. It's interesting to see the rift in the gay community. There are people like myself who value monogamy and (what I consider) sexual responsibility, while there are others who live day-by-day and have sex with anything that walks.

Yes, I do think that it's the free-and-open-sex people that paint a bad stereotype for the rest of us. That image does not help boost public support in our struggle for equality.

With that being said, I still think that if you take the bathhouses away, the promiscuous gays will find sexual partners elsewhere (bars, walking down the street, bathrooms, orgies, etc). From what I've noticed, many do not use protection because it either "doesn't feel as good" (which is a stupid reason to risk your health, IMO), but more importantly, they are uninformed. Many people out there believe that you can't catch anything from oral sex or other non-penetration, genital contact. They don't realize that herpes (among other things) spreads that way, and it certainly isn't curable.

The other problem I've noticed, from talking to acquaintances, is that many of these promiscuous guys suffer from poor self-image, or they need to compensate for something that's lacking in their lives. Thus, they turn to sex, and trust that their partners are honest with them about any STDs, etc. I've noticed this trend among many guys I have met, and I'm beginning to wonder.... from a sociological perspective, are people's negative attitudes toward gays (and the perceived invalidation of our relationships) to blame for fueling the fire (i.e. the rapid rise of promiscuity and unsafe sex, which leads to STDs and HIV/AIDS).

[SnowBack]

29. Let's take the sex out of homosexuality...

And the religious right will still want us dead...

Sounds like the Log Cabin Republicans... Didn't work for them, did it?

With that being said, I still think that if you take the bathhouses away, the promiscuous gays will find sexual partners elsewhere (bars, walking down the street, bathrooms, orgies, etc).

I totally agree... People have been trying to stop people from having sex forever, and it doesn't work... "Just say no" hasn't been working too well in the straight world, has it?

But there actually are people who are not at either end of the spectrum... Not monogamous, but not having sex with anything that walks... Life isn't that clear cut...

I also think there's a big problem with poor self-image in the Gay community, but I don't think it's only with promiscuous Gays...

Uncle Toms who want to fit in so badly that they turn their backs on the community don't seem to have much self-esteem either... (Please don't think I'm calling YOU an Uncle Tom... I appreciate your discussion)

[Brian_Expat]

32. Good Lord

So those of us who don't queue up to fuck five or six strangers per night at The Manhole are "assimilationist Uncle Toms" now?

Nice.

[Moloch]

35. I always thought it was the 'revolving door tricks'

that had the self-esteem problem as well.

I mean, I like sex just as much as the next guy, but some of these people! It's just crazy.

[Brian_Expat]

38. You're just a Bush-loving Log Cabin Assimilationist! ;) n/t

[SnowBack]

39. Make sure not to offend the straight neighbours...

Always wear a suit and tie, don't put up a rainbow flag, and for GOD'S sake don't even think about sex unless you've found the ONE true man who will carry you off into the sunset like in a Gordon Merrick novel...

Otherwise, you'll end up like all of us sex-addicted, self-hating, barebacking, Castro-loving, unable to immigrate to Canada homos who have no jobs, lives or partners... and are going to DIE because the HIV virus is going to attack us as we sleep! Whether we use protection or not.

It LIVES in the baths! RUN! RUN! It's going to GET us!

:evilgrin:

[Brian_Expat]

40. I think it's funny, really. . .

. . . I live my own life, and the contrasting "lifestyles" offered by the two extremes in the gay community -- the Log Closet Republicans or the slather-rainbows-on-everything and get high and fuck anything that moves crowd, both strike me as two sides of the same "conform to what other people think" coin.

I'd much rather live in a world where gay people can find satisfaction not in the closet or some Peter-Pan urban gay ghetto circle jerk, but as the people they are -- teachers, mechanics, businesspeople, storeclerks, factory workers, stay-at-home-moms-or-dads, whatever.

Instead, we're trapped in a war between the acolytes of the closet or the acolytes of irresponsibility. Neither side offers anything that's truly appealing.

[iconoclastNYC]

51. It is not only gays who are "EASY"

Swingers clubs? Straight sex clubs? Straight orgies going back to Rome?

Studies that show that something like 50% of straight married people have had affairs?

Why does everyone focus on gays?

HIV/AIDS is caused by a virus. Educate people on condoms and make testing easy, and nearly universal.

Stop the spread of the virus.

Don't make people who don't agree with your views on sex into a mental illness. This is barely different from fundies thinking that premarital sex would bring about the end of civilization.

[Brian_Expat]

53. Just because some straights do it doesn't mean it isn't dangerous

The rising rates of STDs amongst all promiscuous people, straight and gay, is evidence of the danger of frequent anonymous sex.

[iconoclastNYC]

58. So why are you picking on gays?

[Brian_Expat]

60. I am gay

And I am concerned that the path towards destruction of the gay community comes from both "sides" -- the radical right wing who advocate marginalization and the idiot Peter Pans who advocate complete abandonment of all responsibility for immersion in a life of drugs and promiscuity.

I'm tired of seeing my friends getting sick or dying because of "urban gay culture." I'm tired of seeing other friends being denied basic rights to care for their families. And I'm tired of the coarse, body-fascist, drug-embracing and vacant gay-club culture that is destroying the lives, self-esteem, financial well-being, and health of so many gay people who are convinced there's nothing better than a life of poppers, crystal meth, tweaking, anonymous sex and circuit parties.

[iconoclastNYC]

45. Bullshit detector ALARM Going off

"HIV is increasingly showing an ability to transmit even within "safer sex."

Show me a study on this! The virus is too big to get thru a condom....no mutation is going to stop this. Substantiate your claim here.

Spreading incorrect information leads some younger gay boys to think it is just a matter of time before they come down with HIV so they might as well go for the full feeling and ditch condoms.

Spreading baseless irrational fear of HIV transmission hurts public health.

Just so everyone the scale of people hooking up in bathhouses are NOTHING compared to private sex parties and online hookups.

Unlike those venues bathhouses are public and can be regulated giving activists easy access to disseminate outreach on safe sex and HIV testing to the most at risk populations.

Sex is not the problem. Ignorance and a virus is the problem.

[Brian_Expat]

55. Denialism

"The virus is too big to get through a condom," eh?

What happens if the condom splits?

What happens if, in the heat of the moment, the condom slips off and you don't notice until after a few minutes, and there's some pre-ejaculate or ejaculate that is deposited?

What happens if you're giving oral sex to a stranger when you've got a scratch on your gums, allergy, or a sore throat? It only takes one spirochete entering your bloodstream to infect you.

And HIV isn't the only STD. Other incurable ones, like herpes, can increase your risk of getting HIV by weakening your immune system and creating ulcers to allow the virus to enter your bloodstream.

LGV and syphilis don't even require penetrative sex to transmit, and the drug-resistant versions of those, now rife in inner cities, can also weaken your immune system and/or kill you.

Hepatitis infection rates are soaring and that virus can also weaken your immune system and destroy your health AND isn't stopped by condoms.

Pretending everything is fine and dandy doesn't make it that way. And all those people who pretend that those who talk about the facts of STDs are "sex negative" or "judgmental" are increasingly making up the ranks of people who are part of the soaring rates of infection throughout the United States.

[iconoclastNYC]

69. The sky is falling!

Its going to happen anyway! Look how easy it is....all hope is lost.

[Brian_Expat]

71. Some reality to counter your Peter Panism. . .

I guess all these statistics are just imagined.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6629795/

The number of newly diagnosed HIV infections in gay and bisexual men has risen in many U.S. states, according to a federal study Wednesday which stoked concerns AIDS may be poised for a resurgence in the country.

. . . snip. . .

Gay and bisexual males accounted for 44 percent of the 125,800 diagnoses reported by these states during the period, the Atlanta-based agency said.

“This is not a trend we want to ignore,” said Dr. Ronald Valdiserri, deputy director of the CDC’s HIV/AIDS prevention program. “We need to make sure the leadership in the gay community understands the importance of tracking this very carefully.

. . . snip. . .

A recent surge in syphilis infections among gay and bisexual men has prompted concern among infectious disease experts and public health officials. Syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases increase the risk of contracting HIV.

Oh, but I'm just sex negative. Clap your hands over your ears and shout "la la la la la" and maybe the bad news will all just disappear, right?

[iconoclastNYC]

75. Yes so instead of railing against people who are having sex

Why not encourage safe sex?

Why not encourage testing?

None of that supports your gay bashing, judgment and inflammatory denunciations of the segment of the gay community that have more sex then you like.

Being judgmental turns people off and they stop listening. Thats why most outreach efforts are that way. You have to just recognize that adults are adults and are going to make their decisions you can only educate them and help them make better choices.

Smearing them and spreading irrational fear of oral sex does nothing.

[Brian_Expat]

80. I'm not railing against people who are having sex

I'm railing against irresponsible sexual conduct.

It's fully possible to have responsible sex -- sans promiscuity and with protection, in a monogamous context.

Being judgmental turns people off and they stop listening.

I present only the facts. You're the one being judgmental with your statements about how all gay men are programmed to fuck anything that moves.

People have a choice. They can choose to believe the facts, which show the ever-increasing risk of promiscuity, and adjust their behaviour. Or they can choose to destroy themselves. All I can do is present the facts.

The judgmentalism, such as calling responsible sexuality "assimilationist," is all your game, not mine.

[iconoclastNYC]

84. Keep putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say GAY MEN are programmed that way, i said that it is MEN that are programed that way, and that is a scientific fact. MEN get more from the sex act in that they always have an orgasm (unlike women) and you get a HIGH from them that. There are biological reasons why men are more driven to have sex and when both sex partners are men its no shock that they are going to have more sex.

You turning this into a homophobic statement smacks of projection to me.

To you responsible means monogamous, that is your value system. You want people to live by your value system. For people who don not share your value system responsible should means using protection to minimize risk.

You are putting your values above reason and spreading irrational fear.

[Brian_Expat]

89. It's still bigotry to say that "all men" are "programmed" to act. . .

. . . a certain way.

Next, you'll be saying that all women are programmed to "be emotional" and "have children."

Such discredited theories went out with the 1950s.

[Chovexani]

43. I'm not understanding what all this flaming is about.

I guess I'm naive, but I don't get how people are going off on all these OMGBATHHOUSESARETHEDEVIL tangents when IMO the essential issue wrt to this story, is police misconduct. I know that if I were at this event, or one of my loved ones was, and male cops busted in questioning nude women (whether or not they gave the nude women time to put clothes on seems to be in dispute, but in my experience I would err on the side of believing the women), I'd be incredibly upset to say the least. At minimum, the police demonstrated a level of insensitivity; they couldn't find one female officer to go in there? From the police POV it also seems pretty damn stupid to have male officers in that sort of situation. I know Canada is not nearly as litigious a society as we have down here, and I'm viewing this through the lenses of a New Yorker whose precinct was the one where Abner Louima was brutalized in, but that just seems like a recipe for trouble.

The tone of this thread is troubling to me; the fact that a judge found that these women's constitutional rights were violated has basically been ignored, ostensibly because they were Dirty Women in a Dirty Bathhouse. I really, really hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

[Brian_Expat]

44. It's annoyance

The bathhouse goers are never to be seen in gay marriage lobby efforts (and in fact are often some of the loudest opponents of gay marriage within the GLBT community), but the moment THEIR civil rights are violated, they come rushing out demanding that we fight for them.

Well, I'm sorry guys, but if you're going to bitch at me and tell me that gay marriage is what's ruining the climate for you to head off and go fuck six strangers in a row, don't get all pissy when you get rounded up by the fascists as well.

Ignoring constitutional rights sucks, but the complaints about it from the bathhouse crowd are mighty self-serving and pretty much start and finish with their right to fuck strangers, rather than growing out of any genuine appreciation for everyone's civil rights. As a result, I'll support them in their fight against the Toronto cops, while continuing to express my disgust for their selfish conduct (political and personal alike).

[iconoclastNYC]

54. WHy is it ok for you to hate people who have sex with strangers

But yet it is wrong for a fundy to hate someone for having sex with someone of the same sex.

Its none of your business. They are doing it in private. We live in a free country.

As long as you are having sex with only one person you trust you won't come into contact with any disease.

And I'd like to know how you can say that there is a gay-bathhouse lobby somewhere out there lobbying against gay marriage. That is so stupid on so many levels it's funny.

"Bathhouse patrons against GAY MARRIAGE!"

And by the way there is a difference between asking the government to respect your privacy and going out and demanding a hostile public to recognize gay marriage (with all its religious connections) when the public is clearly not ready for it. Only 50% of democrats support it.

The opposition was on timing and tactic, not against equal rights. But you'll use anything to smear people who do not share your sexual values won't you?

[Brian_Expat]

57. You're hysterical

I don't "hate" people who are sexually irresponsible.

I just get irritated when they condemn all other gay rights that aren't about their right to stick their dick wherever they want as "assimilationist" and then demand that every legal resource we have go towards their right to fuck around in bathhouses.

I happen to think we should have balanced priorities and that the rights of the sexually responsible are important as well -- family law, immigration policies, partnership rights, health care and other areas should not be subsumed or completely ignored simply to defend the "PnP" environment.