Not really a music video. More of a bizarre short film with musical interludes. Quite something to see.
And PS she has such a chameleon-face! Which is why she will undoubtedly stay very famous for many years to come. She knows how to keep morphing, keeping people interested. The comparisons to Madonna are not far off the mark. Well, Madonna of yesteryear anyhow.
Marzo 8 de 2010. En el mismo dÃa me tocó ir a una mesa de debate sobre el dÃa internacional de la mujer, escuchar hombres a favor de la interrupción legal del embarazo, comentar con mis compañeras activistas sobre cómo muchos hombres siguen/seguimos en la lógica de hablar de temas de mujeres en el mismo tono de voz que Ricardo Arjona (vaya mentada!) me tocó el chisme de que en una mesa de debate por la tarde a una de mis amigas le tocó escuchar el comentario de un muchacho que sólo tomó la palabra para decir "las viejas se siguen victimizando un chingo" para irse acto seguido de concluida su frase, y en el evento/kermesse/exposición colectiva de una escuela de arte me tocó ver a una mujer con un pin muy grandote del tamaño de un pañuelo de esos que van en la solapa y muy interesante además, que decÃa "yo no celebro muertes ni conmemoro guerras"
If you live in Michigan, please ask your representative to vote no if and when HB 4583 comes to a vote in the House. From the MM:
Under the proposed changes, a patient will sign a general medical consent which includes permission to test for HIV. If a physician decides to run an HIV test, they will have to get verbal consent before ordering the test and note it in the file. However, a patient is not allowed to verbally decline an HIV test. Patients who do not wish to be tested will be required to put that in writing.
[...]
Mark Peterson, a spokesman for Michigan Positive Action Coalition (MI Poz), a group of HIV-positive people and their supporters in Michigan, said the legislation was not needed.
"I think the problem with this legislation is that it is an answer seeking a problem," he said, noting that hospitals and other medical groups in Southeast Michigan have been complying with the current law, which requires anyone ordering an HIV test to provide a patient with pre-and post-test counseling, as well as sign a specific document on the issue created by the Michigan Department of Community Health.
"It does concern me that we are eliminating that requirement," said Byrum.
The bills sponsor is Representative Roy Schmidt (a democrat from Grand Rapids), to whom I just wrote this note:
Representative Schmidt,
I'm writing in regards to HB 4583, requesting that you withdraw it from consideration. As a sociologist who studies HIV/AIDS for a living, I can say that this law is unnecessary and will do more harm than good. HIV testing is a very sensitive practice that requires a great deal of trust between doctors and their patients. Consent for HIV testing is essential for that trust to be possible. As you are surely well aware, many new infections in Michigan are among African American men who have sex with men - a population that already holds a relatively high level of distrust for medical providers due to experiences of prejudice and mistreatment. Thus, this legislation will damage what is already a fragile relationship between these men and their providers, which would *lower* HIV testing rates due to men avoiding medical attention altogether.
If passed, this bill will have dire, unintended consequences. Please, I ask sincerely that you reconsider this unnecessary and wrongheaded legislation.
California, rich in resources, rich in human talent, rich in industries, and very rich in the rich, can afford a first rate education system. But our quagmired political system (minority rule), anti-tax political culture, upsidedown state budget priorities, and the configuring of higher education itself on the model of a business -- these have demoted public education to the status of a failing discount store.
Indeed, there is more at stake here than the loss of a great system of education, than the madness of permitting oil wealth, real estate wealth, Silicon Valley wealth, banking wealth, Hollywood wealth, agribusiness wealth and prisons to grow ever larger while starving our schools. There is more at stake than the madness of cutting the fuel to the economic engine that generated so much innovation and capacity in California during the last century. It is also the case that there can be no democracy without an educated citizenry.
Without quality public education, we the people cannot know, handle, let alone check the powers that govern us. Without quality public education, there can be no substance to the promise of equality and freedom, no possibility of developing and realizing individual capacities, no possibility of children overcoming disadvantage, or of teens reaching for the stars, no possibility of being a people guiding their own destiny or of individuals choosing their own course. Above all, there is no possibility of being a self-governing people, a democracy:
As the world grows more complex and integrated, as the media grows ever more sophisticated and powerful in shaping events and ideas, what maintains democracy is not the technical instruction into which resource-starved schools are rapidly retreating. It is not the reduction of high school to 2 years, college to 3, not vocational training for the many, but the kind of education through which future citizens learn to understand and engage the complexities of this world.
We already intuitively know this, but it's worth reiterating that unemployment rates and education level are highly correlated - and those without any higher ed have suffered tremendously during this downturn:
The moral of the story: Providing resources for people to access quality higher education at low or no cost must be central to a class-conscious political agenda.
"Being fucked into an orgasm without touching yourself is something that bottom boys like me dream of - it's a fantasy because it's so downright difficult to achieve. It's only happened to me three times, and each time poppers made it possible. Here's why."
I had already been having sex for a decade before I tried poppers for the first time. They always seemed a bit seedy and scary to me - classified under the header "drugs" in my mind and thus were suspicious. But there I was, on all fours, when suddenly my partner put a bottle under my nose and instructed me to breathe in. "What the hell?" I thought. You only live once!
It is difficult to describe the kind of sensation that poppers provide. A bit of chemistry to start. Chemically speaking, most are members of the alkyl nitrate family and they are found in stores in liquid form. They may be labelled as "video head cleaner" or -- the more ridiculous and more common label -- "liquid incense." (Amyl nitrate -- the most famous of the family -- is also a medical treatment for cyanide poisoning!) To call them fragrant would be misleading. While they have a strong aroma, it is not the kind you want your linens smelling like when you wake up in a luxurious hotel. It's more noxious that alluring, a fact that scares many away.
Poppers have the direct effect of relaxing your body's smooth muscles (including the chocolate starfish!), which results in the dilation of your blood vessels and thus an increased heart rate. This is why you should never use them with Viagra or other ED medications - the result could be a dramatic drop in blood pressure and heart attack.
Okay, chemistry and medicine aside. Let's get to the good stuff. The first time anyone attempted to describe what they did for them, it was a friend with a few years of experience under his belt. He looked at me dramatically in the eye, and with a very serious tone told me this: "It's like you're going to die from a disease whose cure is lodged deep inside you. Your partner has to get it out." What a statement, indeed! I was a bit taken aback.
Live from Acapulco! Well, not quite live - but we did film this past weekend on our beautiful balcony during our Spring Break vacation in Mexico. Me and Maxime have quite a great episode in store for you, complete with frank discussions on being a femme bottom, having sex without fear of HIV, cruising, vacationing with straight friends, and having straight friends in general. Fasten your seatbelts, girls, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
Many of you probably know that a few colleges like Dartmouth and Penn, where I'm a grad student, are adding an optional sexual orientation question to their undergraduate applications. A recent Gawker editorial points out,
Most schools already have an optional question about race and ethnicity. Why not one that asks whether or not a student is gay?
I recently voiced my opinion on the subject to a friend, who apparently repeated it in the comments section. But I didn't discover this article via the friend who posted the comment; rather, a totally unrelated friend happened to read it and recognize me in the description.
When you live in Michigan, you start to forget what the sun feels like on your face. So for Spring Break each year, Maxime and I travel down to Mexico to meet our friends Nolberto (who blogs here!) and his partner Chema for a week of mischief and splendor. Aaron joined this year, and after a 14 hour journey (2 flights and one bus ride) we made it to Acapulco for some fabulousness.
Anyholler, obviously blogging will be a bit slow this week. But I'll be popping in to share a photo from time to time :)
Got something to say about gay sex, but don't want your name attached? Every Wednesday starting next week, we'll be posting anonymous columns from gay/bi/queer men just like you! Anything goes: Best sex you ever had, tips and tricks you've learned along the way, and reflections on the trials and tribulations you've encountered in your sexual escapades are all welcome.
Submissions should be at least 500 words with a rough maximum around 1000 words. They will be posted in the order received, with editing only for grammar. Send your submissions by e-mail to . Include a title and I'll publish them here under an anonymous user account. Once published, the e-mail will be destroyed. Your identity will never be revealed!
Looking forward to reading and sharing your dirty thoughts!
"Risk" as a conceptual approach for much of the research on health has come under attack from many sides. Risk is everywhere and nowhere, it seems. When it comes to gay men's health, gay men's sexual risk practices have particularly been scrutinized by researchers who wish to stop gay men from doing such naughty things as having sex without condoms. Many have suggested that rethinking "risk" (traditionally conceived of through the lens of an isolated rational actor making complex cost-benefit analyses aimed at maximizing returns and minimizing harm for him/herself) as a concept is a necessary step towards creating a more effective / ethical / social public health.
As I was reading for my class today on the Sociology of Law, I came across this very interesting distinction between "risk" and "uncertainty" that gets made in the literature on organizational behavior:
"On the whole, then, high-technology start-up financing poses challenges not only of risk but also of uncertainty. Although lay parlance often employs these terms interchangeably, the organizational decision-making literature uses them to describe two distinct conditions. Under conditions of "risk," decision-makers may not be able to predict the future deterministically, but at least they can describe it probabilistically: with a little effort, individuals can identify the full range of options and outcomes, and they can determine roughly how likely it is that any given option will produce any particular outcome. Consequently, despite the presence of risk, decision-makers can still make rational choices based on expected-value calculations, and markets can still produce efficient coordination based on contingent-claims contracts.
Uncertainty, on the other hand, arises when decision-makers cannot determine either (1) the full menu of alterative behavioral options or (2) the relative probability of alternative possible outcomes. Unlike risk, uncertainty is deeply incompatible with the neoclassical model of fully rational decision-making. Instead of producing a careful expected-utility analysis of all lines of action, conditions of uncertainty tend to produce "boundedly rational" decision strategies, involving "good enough" choices, gut feelings, and rules of thumb. At a more macroscopic level, uncertainty elevates transaction costs and exacerbates intra-organization strains and power struggles. Consequently, unresolved uncertainty poses a fundamental cognitive and organizational obstacle to the formation and maintenance of stable markets for high-technology start-up capital."
-- Suchman, M. & Cahill, M. (1996) "The Hired Gun as Facilitator: Lawyers and the Suppression of Business Disputes in Silicon Valley." Law & Social Inquiry, 21(3): 679-712.
So my questions of the day: What would it mean to reconceptualize men's safer sex practices as enacted in an environment of uncertainty -- rather than in an environment of risk? Is "risk" really the appropriate concept for understanding these complicated, negotiated practices?
It's day three of sickness. Hence my old movie marathon. Today I'm watching Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, featuring Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell. You'll remember the famous "Diamonds are a girls best friend" scene. But today I thought I'd highlight this GAYtastic scence featuring Jane and some scantily clad dancing muscle-queens. Enjoy!
I hadn't heard about PEP411.com before this video, but it's quite wonderful. This video is aimed at young Black men, detailing how you can get your hands on post-exposure prophylaxis within 36 hours after a potential exposure to HIV. The sooner the better, theoretically, though the science behind the timing is somewhat murky. What we do know for sure, however, is that when begun soon after exposure, it can dramatically reduce your odds of serconversion. The drugs are essentially a cocktail of anti-retrovirals, just like those prescribed to HIV-positive people. Taken immediately after exposure, it is thought that the drugs are able to inhibit the virus from taking hold of your immune system.
Here's the video:
Although I will note that the video states that "limiting your number of sexual partners" reduces your HIV risk. I resent and disagree with this widespread assertion, and believe it is this prevention message that has led some men to the idea that boyfriends are "safety zones" from infection. A recent modeling study estimated that the majority of new infections in major metro areas among MSM today are the result of sex with primary partners.
Pam's House Blend
She's a fabulous North Carolinian blogging about politics, LGBT and women's rights, the influence of the far Right, and race relations. What more can I say?
. Include a title and I'll publish them here under an anonymous user account. Once published, the e-mail will be destroyed. Your identity will never be revealed!
