There's this drug that people can take called PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; pill name Truvada). The drug reduces the likelihood of an HIV-negative person catching HIV. This drug is heavily marketed to gay men since they have a higher risk of contracting HIV than other groups (for a variety of reasons).
"I'm on PrEP; you should be too."
This all too common online profile statement captures the smugness that comes along with a lot of PrEP users. Most of the guys that I have met that are on PrEP talk about it regularly, which is kind of weird when you think about it. And a lot of guys who are on PrEP either covertly or overtly judge those who are not on PrEP. This more or less comes from the mindset that those on PrEP take better care of their sexual health than those not on PrEP.
If PrEP were freely distributed, then perhaps this judgment would be warranted. But it's not. It's covered by some form of insurance, as all drugs are. Judging people for not being on PrEP does not take into account those who do not have health insurance; those who cannot afford the co-pay for the drug; those who are on their parents' insurance and do not want their parents to know about their sexual habits; etc. Those who can be on PrEP often fail to see the privilege that they have allowing them to take this drug. So simply saying "you should be on PrEP too" is an extremely short-sighted and dismissive.
A Kaiser Permanente study shows that a large fraction of men who are on PrEP have decreased their condom usage. From personal experience, I have met so many guys who are willing and want to abandon condom usage because they are on PrEP. So who are the ones taking better care of their sexual health? If PrEP usage makes patients think they are invincible, then who's having safer sex?
All that being said, I would like to go on PrEP. But I am currently in the situation where I am still on my parents' health insurance, and they don't need to know about this. Once I get on my own health insurance plan, I do intend to go on PrEP.
Friday, June 17, 2016
I'm not pretty enough. And it's probably not my fault.
It's no secret that the gay world has ridiculously warped body image standards. Unless you look like Channing Tatum, Chris Hemsworth, Ryan Gosling, and the like, you're not pretty enough. Just look at any ad targeted toward gay men--instead of skinny blond women in bikinis, you have white, lean, toned men, usually with smooth chests. Even a gay men's health clinic in San Francisco has a wall of erotic male artwork featuring only white penises and white, toned men. And this is in San Francisco, supposedly one of the most accepting places on the planet.
It's also no secret that fat-shaming is a thing everywhere in society, not just in gay world. This is one of those times when I'm glad that no one reads this blog, because I'm about to make the claim that skinny-shaming is a thing too.
Skinny-shaming is a thing too.
I've experienced it firsthand. Granted, it's much more subdued and subtle than fat-shaming, but it still exists. I'm not super toned, and I don't go to the gym regularly. And I've received so many comments implying that I should go to the gym. The number of guys who say they are "only interested in (other) athletic or muscular guys" is obscene. These two examples, among other examples of skinny-shaming, have cost me so many hours of my life which were spent on guilt or self-loathing.
There is evidence supporting the notion of obesity as a heritable/genetic trait. Google it. So just because someone is larger does not necessarily mean that they are unhealthy. But the genetic basis for skinniness is rarely talked about in mainstream society. I need to recognize that I am privileged; I will always be perceived as prettier than heavier men because I was born to parents who were also pre-disposed to skinniness. And this means that judging an overweight person for not being fit enough is a denial of the genetic privilege that some possess.
But, on the flip side, I can't build muscle. I've tried. When I lived in DC for a summer, I went to the gym 5 days each week for 8 weeks. I never saw a change in my body. I never grew any bigger. This too is surely attributable to my genetic-baseline skinny body.
So I'm not pretty enough for the gay world. "I tried to change...tried to be...prettier." But I can't be. I've done all the right things, but it doesn't work for me.
Haters back off.
It's also no secret that fat-shaming is a thing everywhere in society, not just in gay world. This is one of those times when I'm glad that no one reads this blog, because I'm about to make the claim that skinny-shaming is a thing too.
Skinny-shaming is a thing too.
I've experienced it firsthand. Granted, it's much more subdued and subtle than fat-shaming, but it still exists. I'm not super toned, and I don't go to the gym regularly. And I've received so many comments implying that I should go to the gym. The number of guys who say they are "only interested in (other) athletic or muscular guys" is obscene. These two examples, among other examples of skinny-shaming, have cost me so many hours of my life which were spent on guilt or self-loathing.
There is evidence supporting the notion of obesity as a heritable/genetic trait. Google it. So just because someone is larger does not necessarily mean that they are unhealthy. But the genetic basis for skinniness is rarely talked about in mainstream society. I need to recognize that I am privileged; I will always be perceived as prettier than heavier men because I was born to parents who were also pre-disposed to skinniness. And this means that judging an overweight person for not being fit enough is a denial of the genetic privilege that some possess.
But, on the flip side, I can't build muscle. I've tried. When I lived in DC for a summer, I went to the gym 5 days each week for 8 weeks. I never saw a change in my body. I never grew any bigger. This too is surely attributable to my genetic-baseline skinny body.
So I'm not pretty enough for the gay world. "I tried to change...tried to be...prettier." But I can't be. I've done all the right things, but it doesn't work for me.
Haters back off.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Dear Dan Turner
Let’s break this down chunk by chunk.
“As it stands now, Brock’s life has been deeply altered forever by the events of Jan 17th and 18th. He will never be his happy go lucky self with that easy going personality and welcoming smile.”
If Brock has any conscience and morality at all, then I should hope that his life has been deeply altered by the events. If his “self” is a person who commits sexual assault and digital rape, then maybe it is good that he will never be himself again.
“His every waking minute is consumed with worry, anxiety, fear, depression. You can see this in his face, the way he walks, his weakened voice, his lack of appetite.”
And how do you think she feels?
“Brock always enjoyed certain types of food and is a very good cook himself. I was always excited to buy him a big ribeye steak to grill or to get his favorite snack for him. I had to make sure to hide some of my favorite pretzels or chips because I knew they wouldn’t be around long after Brock walked in from a long swim practice. Now he barely consumes any food and eats only to exist.”
How is this relevant? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for Brock because he snacks less? Are these statements a pathetic attempt to lessen the sentence, as if Brock has suffered enough because he doesn’t eat snacks and ribeye steaks anymore? This isn’t an eating disorder, because he is clearly eating enough. And, as one Twitter user pointed out in regards to stealing the snacks, he obviously has a history of taking what he wants.
“These verdicts have broken and shattered him and our family in so many ways. His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve.”
Take a minute to stop and think about her and her family. Think of all the times she has had to recount her story for legal purposes. Every time she brings it up, imagine the pain that she feels. And yes, he may have worked hard to achieve his dream, but that does not excuse him from being held accountable for his actions. Do you think that Brock is exempt from the law because he had a dream and he worked hard? Actions have consequences—this is how the world works.
“That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”
A lot of the internet has misinterpreted this “action” as the sexual colloquialism “action.” Given the nature of the crime, it really was a poor word choice; but it seems to just mean “20 minutes of an event.” Regardless, however, the length of time of the offense is irrelevant. Mass shooters may engage in their “action” for 5 minutes, but they still face serious consequences. And yes, crimes such as sexual assault and digital rape do indeed merit harsh consequences with a steep price to pay.
“The fact that he now has to register as a sexual offender for the rest of this life forever alters where he can live, visit, work, and how he will be able to interact with people and organizations.”
Yes, it does. That’s how it works. Brock made a choice, and now he must live with the consequences of this choice.
“What I know as his father is that incarceration is not the appropriate punishment for Brock. He has no prior criminal history and has never been violent to anyone including his actions on the night of Jan 17th 2015.”
Since you are his father, you somehow understand justice better than any jury or judge. Seems legit. It doesn’t matter whether this was Brock’s first, second, third, or sixteenth crime; Brock broke the law, and the victim is forced to cope with what Brock did to her. Also, his actions on January 17th, 2015 were not violent?? What the actual fuck? What were they, then?
“Brock can do so many positive things as a contributor to society and is totally committed to educating other college age students about the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity. By having people like Brock educate others on college campuses is how society can begin to break the cycle of binge drinking and its unfortunate results.”
What about this case makes Brock at all qualified to educate others about binge drinking and sexual promiscuity? Besides, this case is not about binge drinking and sexual promiscuity; it is about rape. Yes, alcohol was indeed a factor, but millions of people get drunk every weekend and are able to not rape others. Also, who are you claiming the sexually promiscuous one is? Your son, or his victim? How about we change it to say, “By having people like Brock’s father educate their children in the home is how society can begin to break the cycle of rape culture and its devastating results.”
“Probation is the best answer for Brock in this situation and allows him to give back to society in a net positive way.”
“Net positive,” as if the positive actions that Brock may take in the future will somehow neutralize and undo what he did to the victim. You know, Brock can still give back to society after serving a term in prison, too.
“Very Respectfully,
Dan A. Turner”
Shut up.
“As it stands now, Brock’s life has been deeply altered forever by the events of Jan 17th and 18th. He will never be his happy go lucky self with that easy going personality and welcoming smile.”
If Brock has any conscience and morality at all, then I should hope that his life has been deeply altered by the events. If his “self” is a person who commits sexual assault and digital rape, then maybe it is good that he will never be himself again.
“His every waking minute is consumed with worry, anxiety, fear, depression. You can see this in his face, the way he walks, his weakened voice, his lack of appetite.”
And how do you think she feels?
“Brock always enjoyed certain types of food and is a very good cook himself. I was always excited to buy him a big ribeye steak to grill or to get his favorite snack for him. I had to make sure to hide some of my favorite pretzels or chips because I knew they wouldn’t be around long after Brock walked in from a long swim practice. Now he barely consumes any food and eats only to exist.”
How is this relevant? Are we supposed to feel sympathy for Brock because he snacks less? Are these statements a pathetic attempt to lessen the sentence, as if Brock has suffered enough because he doesn’t eat snacks and ribeye steaks anymore? This isn’t an eating disorder, because he is clearly eating enough. And, as one Twitter user pointed out in regards to stealing the snacks, he obviously has a history of taking what he wants.
“These verdicts have broken and shattered him and our family in so many ways. His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve.”
Take a minute to stop and think about her and her family. Think of all the times she has had to recount her story for legal purposes. Every time she brings it up, imagine the pain that she feels. And yes, he may have worked hard to achieve his dream, but that does not excuse him from being held accountable for his actions. Do you think that Brock is exempt from the law because he had a dream and he worked hard? Actions have consequences—this is how the world works.
“That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”
A lot of the internet has misinterpreted this “action” as the sexual colloquialism “action.” Given the nature of the crime, it really was a poor word choice; but it seems to just mean “20 minutes of an event.” Regardless, however, the length of time of the offense is irrelevant. Mass shooters may engage in their “action” for 5 minutes, but they still face serious consequences. And yes, crimes such as sexual assault and digital rape do indeed merit harsh consequences with a steep price to pay.
“The fact that he now has to register as a sexual offender for the rest of this life forever alters where he can live, visit, work, and how he will be able to interact with people and organizations.”
Yes, it does. That’s how it works. Brock made a choice, and now he must live with the consequences of this choice.
“What I know as his father is that incarceration is not the appropriate punishment for Brock. He has no prior criminal history and has never been violent to anyone including his actions on the night of Jan 17th 2015.”
Since you are his father, you somehow understand justice better than any jury or judge. Seems legit. It doesn’t matter whether this was Brock’s first, second, third, or sixteenth crime; Brock broke the law, and the victim is forced to cope with what Brock did to her. Also, his actions on January 17th, 2015 were not violent?? What the actual fuck? What were they, then?
“Brock can do so many positive things as a contributor to society and is totally committed to educating other college age students about the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity. By having people like Brock educate others on college campuses is how society can begin to break the cycle of binge drinking and its unfortunate results.”
What about this case makes Brock at all qualified to educate others about binge drinking and sexual promiscuity? Besides, this case is not about binge drinking and sexual promiscuity; it is about rape. Yes, alcohol was indeed a factor, but millions of people get drunk every weekend and are able to not rape others. Also, who are you claiming the sexually promiscuous one is? Your son, or his victim? How about we change it to say, “By having people like Brock’s father educate their children in the home is how society can begin to break the cycle of rape culture and its devastating results.”
“Probation is the best answer for Brock in this situation and allows him to give back to society in a net positive way.”
“Net positive,” as if the positive actions that Brock may take in the future will somehow neutralize and undo what he did to the victim. You know, Brock can still give back to society after serving a term in prison, too.
“Very Respectfully,
Dan A. Turner”
Shut up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)