August 2010 Archives

Mason Wyler, a gay porn star, recently revealed on his blog that he is HIV positive. That fact alone is enough to elicit my sympathy, but it's the circumstances of his disclosure that disturb me the most.

For the uninitiated (and I have to confess, I was until I was told about his disclosure), Wyler is a sexy 20-something self-described "gay sex addict" (site NSFW, in other words "not suitable for work"--which usually means it's sexually graphic) working in the porn industry since 2005.

By all outward appearances, he seems to be successful at his chosen profession. The pay porn site MasonWyler.com (site NSFW) is dedicated to his work and WylerNation.com (site NSFW) is his personal blog.

Here's an excerpt of his blog post on August 19:

"I spent the last few months waiting for the right time to tell you but it turns out that there is no right time...people have already begun to talk so I might as well just tell you now. I tested positive. I have only myself to blame. I have HIV and it kind of sucks."

Wyler felt obliged to write another post on August 20:

"Since testing positive in May, I have hooked up with a total of three people and they were all HIV positive themselves. Seriously. I have not gone around fucking, barebacking, or infecting HIV negative people. I am a sex fiend. I am NOT a monster. So to the people who are spreading rumors that I have done otherwise, STOP."

It wasn't obvious to me exactly what Wyler was referring to about rumors, but then I ran across this post at the LGBT blog Queerty and it explained quite a bit.

According to Queerty, Wyler's self disclosure of his HIV-positive status came only after several preceding events, including speculation as to why he had decided in July to switch to masturbation-only work, followed by a former roommate (also a porn star) alleging on a blog and tweeting that Wyler was "spreading disease," followed by a post on August 19 on the gay porn blog GayPornGossip.com (site NSFW) outing Wyler as HIV positive.

It appears it was the GayPornGossip.com outing that pushed Wyler to self disclose. The gist of the GayPornGossip.com post is Wyler allegedly was behaving irresponsibly as a person living with HIV, so the site was taking matters into its own hands to stop him from harming others. As evidence, the post cites an alleged profile of Wyler on the gay personals site Adam4Adam that lists his HIV status as negative.

Two prominent gay porn blogs, TheSword.com and QueerClick.com, reacted negatively to the outing of Wyler's HIV-positive status.

TheSword.com (site NSFW) posted this:

"In short, there is no moral or journalistic value in reporting on anyone's private, personal health issues unless they choose to come forward, which Mason has today ... Why [GayPornGossip.com] chose to reveal Mason's status today is beyond all logical reasoning."

QueerClick.com (site NSFW) posted this:

"What's left us scratching our heads though is the reason [GayPornGossip.com] gave for choosing to disclose Wyler's HIV status in the first place: because Wyler didn't 'back away from his previous 'lifestyle'... and other necessary things'? Like changing the status on his Adam4Adam profile? Sounds pretty moralistic and judgmental."

There are other details to this story that I am choosing not to explore. Those details (allegations of barebacking on and off camera, allegations as to Wyler's credibility because in 2008 he said he was raped, etc.) are beside the point I care about most.

Many blogs and bloggers, LGBT and otherwise, have been gaining credibility as not only sources for opinion but as sources for news. When things like this occur, it's a reminder that many other blogs and bloggers, LGBT and otherwise, still have a long way to go.

Credible news outlets have journalistic standards. On this story, GayPornGossip.com didn't pass the test. Wyler's HIV status was his to reveal publicly, or not. It was not up to GayPornGossip.com to decide Wyler should come out publicly as HIV positive, no matter what good they thought would come from it.

UPDATE: Click here to read Wyler's interview with Advocate.com about the reactions to his HIV disclosure.

Oriol on:

National Latino AIDS Awareness Day (NLAAD) is commemorated annually on October 15. In anticipation of the event, the Latino Commission on AIDS and other organizers of this HIV awareness day have launched their 2010 website, which is fully bilingual in English and Spanish.

"Save a Life, It May Be Your Own. Get Tested for HIV" is this year's theme. The urgency of this message reveals itself in this statistic from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 42 percent of Latinos who test HIV positive receive an AIDS diagnosis within 12 months, which is faster than any other racial or ethnic group.

Go to nlaad.org for more information.


Oriol on:

Steven Slater, the JetBlue flight attendant who deployed an inflatable emergency chute after landing at JFK Airport and then fled the scene, pled not guilty to charges of reckless endangerment, criminal mischief and criminal trespass.

The details of Slater's story from this point on vary quite a bit depending on the news outlet. However, there does seem to be a consensus on the outline of the story.

A passenger grabbed a bag in an overhead compartment when the plane was landing. Slater told the passenger to close the overhead and sit down. The passenger disregarded Slater's request and grabbed the bag anyway. The passenger told Slater, "Fuck you." Either the bag or the door of the overhead bin struck Slater in the head.

As a result, Slater yelled expletives into the P.A. system of the plane, grabbed at least one beer can, opened the plane door deploying the chute, slid down, got into his car and drove to his home in Queens, where he was arrested.

OK so far, but when basic details like the gender or sex of the passenger who cursed at Slater are in conflict (for example, an ABC News article uses the pronoun "she" and the New York Post uses the pronoun "he"), I hesitate to draw too many conclusions. However, there is one detail that I just can't avoid exploring further.

According to the New York Post, Slater told the police that he was HIV positive. The New York Times does not mention Slater's HIV status, but other outlets do mention it.

Oh, the ethics of HIV disclosure. When to disclose one's HIV status on a personal level (for example, I happen to be HIV positive, by the way, just in case someone reading this didn't know) is tricky enough, but having one's HIV status disclosed by a third party ups the ante.

The same rules should apply for journalists in disclosing HIV status as with disclosing sexual orientation or gender identity: Is it relevant?

Let's take the example of Judge Walker from the federal Prop 8 case. The fact that Walker is gay may or may not have had an impact on how he decided the case, but I believe his being gay is relevant enough to warrant disclosure of his sexual orientation by the media.

And while we're at it, let's take the issue of the Post also revealing that Slater "hopped into bed with his boyfriend" when he went home. Was this relevant?

I believe there may be a reason Slater's HIV status is relevant, but more on that in a moment. As it stands so far in my telling of the story, the details don't seem to warrant disclosure. And such seems to be the conclusion of the New York Daily News.

"Steven Slater told police he's HIV positive after his arrest for his JetBlue tantrum at JFK: sources" was the original Daily News headline, but "Steven Slater bail set at $2,500, attorney tells judge flight attendant's rant was sane thing to do" is the current headline and there is no mention of HIV in the current version of the article.

The fact that the Daily News scrubbed HIV out of their story very soon after their original decision shows some level of doubt about the relevancy of disclosing Slater's HIV status.

UPDATE: "JetBlue flight attendant who lost his cool arraigned; pleads not guilty" was the headline of the original New York Post story with the HIV reference. When you now click on the link that used to take you to that story, it now goes to a story headlined "Jet Blue flight attendant who lost his cool released" with no references to HIV. So, the Post also has seemingly changed its mind about the relevancy of disclosing Slater's HIV status. Search results on the New York Post website still show the original headline.

Now, back to why it may be relevant. I have no knowledge as to whether Slater is HIV positive. However, as someone who is HIV positive, I can imagine what would make me disclose my HIV status to the police in that situation and it ain't pretty.

If I were bleeding and still conscious, I'd tell the police--and anyone else that might come into contact with my blood--that I was HIV positive. Most of the reporting says that Slater was hit on the head. The ABC News video seems to show a substantial gash on his forehead.

Watch the ABC News video:


No matter how remote the risk of HIV transmission, the health and safety of other people would make me disclose my HIV status (not to mention, depending on what jurisdiction I happen to be in, there may be legal consequences to me not disclosing my HIV status).

Disclosure of my HIV status to the police under those circumstances would seem reasonable to me. And I believe it would be relevant enough for the media to report my HIV status.

Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part. I may be on to something here or I may be totally wrong. Journalistically, now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is fair game to discuss. But I also believe the relevancy threshold had not been met yet for the media, and that's a shame.


Oriol on:

Proposition 8 in California, which amended by referendum the state's constitution to revoke marriage equality for same-sex couples recognized by the state's top court, was declared unconstitutional today by a federal court.

LGBT supporters and LGBT people nationwide have every reason to celebrate the ruling. Equal rights, the ruling asserted, are not subject to the whims of the majority.

In his opinion, Judge Vaughn R. Walker wrote:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

The ruling will be appealed to a U.S. appeals court and perhaps to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ultimate outcome is yet to be determined, but the judge in this case has set the bar high for overturning this ruling. LGBT rights are civil rights, human rights.

As a gay man, I obviously support this ruling. As an HIV-positive man, however, I also support this ruling.

What do HIV and LGBT issues have in common? Homophobia contributes to HIV risk and anti-LGBT laws are homophobic.

Usually I'm a lot more diplomatic, but today all I can muster is do the rest of the darn math yourself.


Oriol on:

For anyone who thinks LGBT rights are a luxury, please watch this video:

 

Health care is a human right. Period.

Oriol on: