Porn again
Who’d have thunk that Darren James, star of Black Dicks in White Chicks III and scores of other similar - errmm - entries (honestly, his filmography goes on and on: http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=2226) would have something to say about HIV stigma. But in this month’s POZ magazine, he does, and it’s quite enlightening.
Although Darren’s name was unfamiliar to me - largely because Black Dicks in White Chicks III isn’t exactly my niche, as it were - he is apparently notorious in the adult film industry not only for becoming HIV positive but for infecting, unwittingly it seems, a number of his female co-stars. He’s since retired, and talking about the experience. Good for him.
Read the POZ interview here: http://www.poz.com/articles/darren_james_porn_hiv_2271_15639.shtml
What interested me particularly about the article were Darren’s comments on the reaction to his diagnosis. “Many heterosexual guys with HIV experience a double stigma, which is different from that of our gay and female counterparts. Not only do you have HIV (big stigma there), but everyone you run into, even people within the positive community (even those who profess to be knowledgeable about transmission), will insist you must have gotten it some other way. They might not say it to your face, but they’re usually thinking it. That part about living with this disease as a heterosexual guy really sucks. A lot of positive women don’t want to believe you when you tell them you got it from a female.”
That comment, more than slightly homophobic, really sucks too. Darren is saying that not only do people know he’s HIV, but - jeez, they’re thinking poor James is gay too. How yucky is that?
Having said that, he makes a point worth dwelling on that has nothing to do with Darren’s neuroses. Namely, that many folks with HIV experience stigma from more than one direction. Darren is HIV, but he’s also a porn star (one who didn’t use condoms) and he’s black, and girls think he’s a fag. He was also diagnosed in the “age of enlightenment” when it’s considered by many to be downright dumb to contract HIV. That’s a lot of stigma to handle, isn’t it?
But he’s not alone in this stigma-piled-up-on-stigma state of things. Myself, I’m pretty lucky. Why? I’m positive but I don’t have Hep C. I don’t have a prison record, a drug habit, work in the sex trade, nor am I homeless. But I’ve worked with many poz guys who share more than a few of these attributes. Letting the world in to see even a fraction of that burden must be exceedingly difficult, a brave act indeed. Yet people do it.
I guess I’m suggesting that HIV stigma is seldom a stand-alone concept. Many of us are HIV and gay, which combined, carries its own stigma, albeit perhaps reduced from days gone by. (Remember when there was a distinction between “innocent victims” of the epidemic - the blood transfused - and us gay men?) But so many out there have it worse, much worse, dealing with multiple layers of stigma, and I’m beginning to think that if we just tackle the HIV stigma alone, and don’t address the “cofactors” which compund that stigma, we are kind of missing the boat.
Wadyya think?
Tags: adult movies, darren james, porn, poz, stigma
June 21, 2010 09:28 AM
Opowiadania erotyczne…
I think this is a great post. One thing that I find the most helpful is number five. Sometimes when I write, I just let the flow of the words and information come out so much that I loose the purpose. It’s only after editing when I realize what I’v…
January 7, 2009 05:09 PM
Hi Anonymous. Thanks for chipping in here. I think you’re probing in to the nature of stigma in ways that are potentially very valuable - and point to the kind of discussions that need to take place concerning where we go from here.
You ask “Are those other individuals stigmatized primarily because of their HIV, or does HIV merely compound the other forms of discrimination they have to face?” Probably the latter. But your conclusion - that we need to address the contributing factors to HIV stigma - homophobia, racism, societal attitudes to drug use, etc. - is really where I was coming from too. And yes, that’s incredibly challenging. But I mentioned the concept of targeted campaigns before and as a movement we have some experience with those, so I’m optimistic inroads can be made.
I think you and Elliott are saying that tackling homophobia first as one of the major contributors to how HIV stigma manifests itself (because by itself HIV stigma can sometimes be fairly benign) makes sense. Certainly the numbers affected by the HIV/homophobia combo would back that approach up. Even those who aren’t gay, like our porn star Darren who started this whole thing off, are sometimes the spin-off targets of homophobia too, it seems.
Interesting discussion though, eh? I think it’s an example of how campaigns like this, and the discussion they produce, help to provide a little more direction and focus about the work that continues to need to be done, don’t you think?
So where do we go from here? Want to be more specific about what you think should happen in terms of tackling homophobia?
January 7, 2009 01:56 PM
Hi Bob, good points but I’d like to take a closer look at what Elliot’s talking about here. I agree with you that some people have to contend with much more given other characteristics–but I also think that Elliot has hit on something crucial here. Are those other individuals stigmatized primarily because of their HIV, or does HIV merely compound the other forms of discrimination they have to face? If we look at this in terms of the latter, then we can see that things like racism (for example) remain alive and well–not to mention those other populations considered marginal at best like substance users. With this in mind, I can’t help but agree with Elliiot about the importance of tackling homophobia as a crucial point of departure. In fact, as you note yourself, HIV alone doesn’t necessarily constitute a stigmatized group–see your claims about the “innocent” victims in this context. I say we look more closely at these foundations: homophobia and racism, among other things. Of course, this makes the battle even tougher to win.
January 6, 2009 10:35 AM
Hi Elliott.
Spreading our efforts a bit thin is indeed a danger, particularly in an era of very focussed or targeted HIV prevention messaging. That tends to be offset to some extent by multi-pronged approaches that most people agree are necessary to tackle the epidemic. On the other hand, can we afford to tackle HIV stigma as if it’s generic, that everyone experiences it the same, and that it isn’t often wrapped up and compounded in a host of cofactors?
I don’t know, it just strikes me that the stigma experienced by a poz middle-class white guy with strong social supports is quite a different kettle of fish from that faced by a black, injection drug using, Hep-C co-infected, straight, ex inmate who is living on the streets - and is poz also. (And I’m not playing stereotypes here, just using this as an example of what some folks have to deal with.)
I think I’m acknowledging the complexity of the task ahead and putting that out there for discussion rather than suggesting what we are doing now is wrong or ineffective.
January 6, 2009 12:01 AM
Bob,
Strange bedfellow indeed. You would have to think that someone who is getting paid to have sex for public viewing isn’t particularly focussed on race relations (don’t get me started on the homophobia in the porn industry, one more straight boy title and I think I will scream).
To speak to the double stigma though I think is to speak to the homophobia, at least in this case. His issue is that everyone thinks that he is gay. You wouldn’t think that this would bother someone secure in their sexuality, but here we are. The reason he is facing this issue is because HIV is seen as the gay disease, only gays get it so he must be gay.
I feel the gay disease is a double-edged sword. For instance, in the last few years we have not seen campaigns aimed at gay men (1 in 4 in Toronto have it). I think we need to be look at innovative ways to reach this community because I get the feeling we are not reaching these people, especially the young. I think my generation sees HIV as something that has happened to yours and does not effect us. For example, this infection is new for me, but prior to it, it was often always me who had to insist on safer sex. I am pretty sexually active, and if it wasn’t for me insisting on using rubber I could have barebacked a good 90 percent of the guys I was with (no small number both statistically and nominally). I think we have missed the mark drastically on prevention because we do not have peers speaking to us, because we feel these issues do not touch us. (Anyway, this is getting off topic).
Back to the topic at hand, I believe that if we focus strongly on the reduction of stigma around HIV these other co-factors will dissipate as well. I don’t want us spreading ourselves too thin when a lot of our work is best served by reducing hiv-stigma, that is, after all, why we are here.
How do you feel?
Cheers,
E
January 5, 2009 05:03 PM
Hi Elliott. You are absolutely right that there is a subtext to the interview with Darren that I largely ignored - the suggestion that HIV is a gay disease that can’t affect straights, which apparently made it harder for him to negotiate his way through disclosure etc. But actually that POZ interview is so rich with issues worth discussing, I could hardly do it justice. I chose to concentrate on the double-stigma side of things, because we haven’t talked much about that here yet, but there’s much more I could have said.
I did sort of tackle the issue you raise in an earlier post. It’s here: http://www.hivstigma.com/blogs/bob/?p=128 It’s a tricky one though, how we “position” HIV as a movement. Because there is merit in both stressing that HIV is a gay disease and asserting that it’s not. And I do agree with your assessment that HIV stigma and homophobia have close connections.
As for the story on the porn star, I do admire the guy for coming forward. Can’t say I admire his “artistic output” though - it seems to play heavily on racial stereotyping - and you have to question the industry’s predilection for no condoms. But I have to think of him as an ally for speaking out. Strange bedfellows eh?
January 5, 2009 04:22 PM
Bob,
First, I agree with Nick, and a little crazy never hurt.
I think it is important to tackle the co-factors as well, but to be frank I think you missed the point here. What this says to me is that people still largely see HIV/ AIDS as the gay disease. My therapist recently made a very similar remark about it during a session and I was shocked. HIV being a gay phenomenon is something that is rarely ever discussed or even engaged. I know HIV can touch anyone but in North America it is most prevalent in the queer community. Have you ever stopped to wonder if a large part of the stigma is actually homophobia? Is there so much stigma around HIV in North America largely because it is associated with queers?
Cheers,
E
January 5, 2009 01:16 PM
Thanks Nicolas. But re my “beautiful mind”, the guy in the movie of the same name was slightly crazy, wasn’t he?
Come to think of it . . oh well, never mind. I appreciate the comment.
January 5, 2009 12:02 PM
I think your mind is a beautiful thing, Bob. That’s what I think.