FlatPlanet.net

WikiPedia:

Bugchasing (or bug chasing) is a slang term for a subculture of gay men who desire, and actively pursue HIV infection. Bugchasers “chase the bug” by seeking sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and sero-converting; giftgivers are HIV+ men who attempt to infect bugchasers with HIV.

Bugchasing is viewed with disdain by many in the gay community who consider it a dangerous and self-destructive activity, and some may be concerned that the behaviors of bugchasers may contribute to a public perception that the practice is common or encouraged by all gay people.

Rolling Stone, Jan 23, 2003:

Carlos nonchalantly asks whether his drink was made with whole or skim milk. He takes a moment to slurp on his grande Caffe Mocha in a crowded Starbucks, and then he gets back to explaining how much he wants HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. His eyes light up as he says that the actual moment of transmission, the instant he gets HIV, will be “the most erotic thing I can imagine.” He seems like a typical thirty-two-year-old man, but, in fact, he has a secret life. Carlos is chasing the bug.

“I know what the risks are, and I know that putting myself in this situation is like putting a gun to my head,” he says. Some of that mountain music that’s so popular is playing, making the moment even more surreal as a Southern voice sings, “Keep on the sunny side of life” behind Carlos. “But I think it turns the other guy on to know that I’m negative and that they’re bringing me into the brotherhood. That gets me off, too.”

…

When asked whether he is prepared to live with HIV after that “erotic” moment, Carlos dismisses living with HIV as a minor annoyance. Like most bug chasers, he has the impression that the virus just isn’t such a big deal anymore: “It’s like living with diabetes. You take a few pills and get on with your life.”

HIVplusMag

We just don’t know. There is evidence to point to the role of fatalism, depression, and hopelessness—all characteristics described in the Rolling Stone article—within HIV prevention efforts. Whether bug chasing is a big phenomenon or a tiny fetish, we have a responsibility to know the magnitude of the behavior and to try to develop interventions to address the problem.

…

The Rolling Stone article is a little sensationalistic. Some of the people quoted in the article say they were misquoted or their quotes were used out of context, and Freeman did get one of the most important stats in his story wrong. He reports that an estimated 25% of all newly infected gay men are infected through “bug chasing.”

…

What Freeman misses is that those 40,000 new cases are not all gay men. Only 42% of new infections annually are among men who have sex with men; 33% are through heterosexual sex, and 25% from injection-drug use.

…

It is legitimate for AIDS activists to be concerned about how the general public will react to the news that there are some gay men—no matter how few—who are intentionally getting infected and knowingly infecting others. But our first and primary obligation is to stop the spread of HIV. That requires us to look at the ugly and hard questions before us. AIDS is being spread in small towns all over America, and there are people who are bug chasers. That much is clear. We all need to be less concerned about image and funding and more concerned about creating a world without AIDS.

Wah? There are people who want to catch HIV? Assuming that Carlos actually exists, he must be fatalistic indeed. Despite recent advances in treatment, I doubt anyone would find diabetes and HIV to be comparable, and yet, there it is, quoted in black and white. Completely outrageous and actually saddening.

Dusting off my degree in fictional Arm Chair Psychology, what are the surrounding factors that contribute to this phenomena?

First let’s talk about the group of gay men who already have HIV. It makes complete sense that this group would socialise together for a variety of reasons, not least of which is general rejection and lack of understanding from the rest of society. The community of HIV+ men pre-exists the supposed phenomena of bugchasing. Is this this close-knit and interdependent community a strong reason for otherwise uninfected men to want to join the “Brotherhood” The need to feel like one belongs can be very powerful. Is it self-loathing and a general dissatisfaction with protected sex? Carlos has found it OK to pursue an HIV infected man, AKA “The Gift Giver.”

It must be difficult to be Carlos. A promiscuous gay man constantly under the fear of catching the virus. Maybe his view is once you have HIV you no longer have to worry about getting it. Once you have it, and your partner(s) have it too, you can have as much unprotected sex as you’d like - OK, not really, there are other STDs - without worry that you will be transmitted the disease, because you already have it.
Furthermore, if you decide that you want HIV then, when you eventually you do contract it, you had consented to it’s influence in your life, expected to be just a nuisance like diabetes.

When I realized people could make fun of my name I started making fun of it myself. I took the power away from others by afflicting myself with abuse. I think that Bug Chasing is an attempt to take the power away from the virus by consenting to it. It has not invaded his life, it has been welcomed in.

I realize condoms aren’t as fun, but is bareback sex really worth becoming a carrier of an epidemic virus? Is contracting a virus that will kill you in about 11 years worth a hypothedical “erotic” moment?

Carlos cannot donate blood in an emergency, or if he is injured and bleeding in an accident, he could, while there is only a small chance of this, infect others if his blood gets mixed up with theirs. Moreover, when the cocktails stop working, and HIV gives way to AIDS, I think Carlos will regret his decision.

Maybe not. I suppose he has simply come out of the closet as a suicidal nihilist.

About HIV… Has killed 25 million since 1981. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Fascism terrifies me. The totalitarian rule that comes with Communism also terrifies me. Here are two ideologies that lie on opposite ends of the spectrum that rule in the exact same way. They’re less polarized than they look. Case in point, the capitalist inclinations of “communist” China.

Communism is not dead. Communism will not die. The basic principles of it are too appealing, too seductive to stay beaten for long. Hugo Chavez’ increasing forays into autocratic rule in Venezuela are a testament to the temptation of power used for a “greater good”. (This post is not about Chavez, and I would like to qualify the last sentence by saying that I don’t think Chavez is nearly as dangerous or despotic as he is made out to be in the mainstream press.) Vladimir Putin’s tightening grasp of power in Russia is equally telling, and much more frightening. “Benign Dictatorship” does not, and cannot exist – there will always be somebody on the wrong side of the boot heel. Whether or not they deserve it is something else, but this post isn’t about that, either.

Fascism is not dead. Fascism will not die. I am obliged to direct the reader to Naomi Wolf’s “The End Of America”. I haven’t read it, but I’ve read enough synopses to get the gist. If it isn’t already obvious, fascist interests are on the rise in The States. Through the ranks in Canada I see similar shades of fascism. They are not as black (or brown, should I say?) as those in the south, but the inklings are there. (If this is how Stephen Harper acts in a minority government, what would he do with a majority? The prospect is horrific.) This post isn’t about fascism on the rise, though. Enough people have written about that.

Totalitarian rule of any kind is anathema to me. Fascism terrifies me. Communism terrifies me. What does this leave? The market? The market is impure, unreliable, amoral, and slow (look at the electric car, or public transportation). The market is subject to manipulation by forces visible and hidden (look at advertising, or lobby groups). The market drove the world to where it is today. And we expect it to drive us out, as well? Someone once said that the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. But no, this post isn’t about the market.

This post is about the paradox I am trapped in.

The world is in terrible shape. If you don’t believe that, you’re wearing blinders. It is largely agreed that we gained the ability to obliterate life as we know it when that first atomic bomb went off in New Mexico. But we aren’t going to destroy ourselves with atomics. We don’t need to. Not while we have greenhouse gases, rainforest and watershed destruction, desertification, overfishing, soil degradation, toxic materials, petroleum reliance, and much more pushing us along. The end-game of our free-wheeling lifestyle is becoming increasingly clear.

The market drove us here. Not democracy, exactly – democracy has never really been in play. Not really. Nobody really wants the rainforest destroyed (though people do want farmland, people do want beef). Nobody really wants the oceans to be emptied of fish (though people do want sushi). Nobody wants smog to blanket their cities (though people do want to get to work from their quiet suburban home). People want it both ways, and the short-term always wins.

So where does this leave us? How do we solve this problem?

I believe that we are in very big trouble. I am having a hell of a time planning for the future, because I don’t really believe there will be one. Even if people do smarten up (and they are starting to), the institutions around us are too old and creaking to do us much good. Those in power have too many interests to follow (none of which are in the interest of the planet). The market is still moving slower than the Himalayan glaciers are melting.

Herein lies my paradox.

The systems in place throughout the world are not equipped to handle the disasters we are bringing upon ourselves. I can’t help but feel that only a totalitarian rule – a global rule – can really truly save us. A total global “reset,” with a set of leaders to rebuild the institutions from the ground up. Rule that will remake factories the world over. Law that will replace our moribund infrastructure and end our slavish lifestyles. Order that will stop genocides.

Totalitarianism terrifies me.

And here I am considering it as our best option.

Someone please save me from this line of thought.