What They Don't Want You to Know about Truvada

Truvada prevents AIDS.

Wow. What a headline. You'd think you'd see it on the front page of the New York Times!

Well, don't hold your breath.

Truvada -- when taken by someone who is HIV negative -- is very very effective at protecting you from HIV. Let me put it in a way that might have the most pragmatic value for the gay-man-on-the-street today. If you are HIV positive and you are on HIV medication (and you have an undetectable viral load) you can have unprotected sex with your partner who is HIV negative and taking Truvada and the risk is exactly the same as wearing condoms (i.e. practicing safe sex).

Unfortunately not everyone is interested in spreading the good news. Truvada is proving as controversial for gay men as birth control was for women in the 1960s.

Nowadays, we look on the birth control pill as an unqualified success. The pill radically changed women's lives, liberating them, making them happier, healthier, and able to control their futures. Without the threat of unwanted pregnancies, women pursued careers once reserved only to men, steering their lives in unimaginable ways. But back in the early 60s, some were opposed to birth control. They argued that if women were freed from the fear of unwanted pregnancy, they would become more promiscuous. This was reason enough to want to hide the truth from tender feminine ears.

Similarly, some people have tried to discourage gay men from using Truvada. Larry Kramer has said  "Truvada is for cowards." The fear (much like the fears about women and birth control) is that gay men armed with Truvada will go crazy and have unprotected (i.e. bareback) sex. And what should be important news shouted from every rooftop has barely made it into the headlines.

Sure it's possible that some gay men may misuse the new discovery. Truvada is most effective when it is used along with condoms. Truvada protects you from HIV, but not not from other sexually transmitted diseases - especially particularly lethal ones like Hepatitis C.

But many gay men have lived the past thirty-five years in shame and fear. They came to believe their own bodily fluids were lethal. For these men, AIDS has not only caused unbelievable suffering and killed their friends - but it has ruined sex. The idea that sperm is so terribly dangerous has,  paradoxically, eroticized practices that up until now, have been deemed risky for gay men. So yes, those of us who have felt unhappy with safe sex practices may be more than eager to say goodbye to the fear and loathing that has consumed our lives; i.e. we may prefer to live (at our own peril) in a condom-less world.

But is that a reason to hide this very important scientific information?

Already the Truvada debate has taken on a nasty tone, evident in the surfacing of the slang term "Truvada Whore" - a moniker some gay men have been rebelliously eager to own and flaunt.

But just as with birth control, we mustn't allow our moral judgements to stop the free flow of information. Policing gay men's bodies and/or women's bodies does not work. Treating them like children does not work. Hiding the truth does not work. Respecting their right to make adult decisions with the proper information most certainly does.

Knowledge is morally neutral - even though it is sometimes used for the wrong purposes. The Theory of Relativity, after all, was the inspiration for the development of the atomic bomb.

I do not, however think - like some - that Truvada is the equivalent of a nuclear disaster.

I think instead, that - like Einstein's theories, and the discovery of the pill - the truth about Truvada is radical and essential information that needs to be widely disseminated, because of the possibility it has for improving all our lives.

So please - speak, email, sing, shout - and tweet - the news!

Sure, condom usage has drastically reduced the transmission of HIV and death from AIDS — but we now have another incredibly effective tool to add to the arsenal. And that knowledge has the enormous power to free us from fear.

Fuck You, Disney!

I’ve had it with this crap. Little girls lined up in front of me at a restaurant dressed in their Cinderella gowns. Makes me want to throw up.

Don’t you see what’s going on here? There's no going back. Disney has decided, because it makes them a lot of money, that all little girls must be blonde and pretty and feminine and love blue sparkly dresses. If they don’t they don’t deserve to be called little girls anymore.

And what if you’re a little girl and you hate Cinderella and you’d rather wear construction boots and play with trucks?

Or worse yet; what if you’re a little boy and you really really want to dress up like Cinderella, and you're jealous of all the little girls who get to do it when you don’t?!?!?!?

How are you going to feel then?

You’re going to feel like a piece of shit, that’s what.

Meanwhile thousands of kids in North America are being rounded up by their parents and therapists and diagnosed with ‘gender identity disorder’ (GID) because the DSM (the psychiatrist’s manual) tells us that little girls who don’t act like little girls and little boys who don’t act like little boys are mentally ill and need psychiatric help.

We live in giant gender-fascist state in which children are held hostage because their parents are too lazy to confront big corporations like Disney on the lifestyles they present to their children.

There, I said it.

Do you think I’m exaggerating? Think about it. The whole of the movie industry has become a giant babysitting corporation — most movies are aimed at children or adolescents, and parents welcome the respite from the whiney little buggers — in fact they are so grateful that they don’t seem to care what their children see, or what kind of role models they are digesting. They are so eager to get those kids off their backs that they would send them to see anything.

Any piece of warmed over SHITE like Cinderella.

Yes, I blame parents.

Yes I do.

And don’t believe these dumb reviewers like the one I saw on CBC the other day (you know — the idiot with the bow tie?) who was going on about how ‘there’s a twist in this Cinderella.’ There’s no fucking twist. I haven’t seen the movie but I don’t need to. It’s like Frozen. I was talking about that piece of crap with the female students in my university class and they were all mesmerized by it. I’d only seen the cloying nauseating video of the Frozen song, not the movie. (I refuse to see that dumb flick.)  “Oh the movie’s not sexist! “ They told me. “The girl is really independent and she doesn’t want to get married or anything she just wants to make sure that her sister doesn’t marry the wrong guy.” Oh I see, the leading lady doesn’t want to get married herself, so that’s supposed to redeem the movie, even though it’s all about her sister getting married? Really?

Fuck.

I don’t care about any supposed twists in this so-called ‘new’ Cinderella. It’s the same old crap. It’s just all a gigantic moneymaking venture trying to make a fortune off the backs off your children (and their sanity!). And worst of all — you just don’t give a shit. 

Pardon me but who cares if this Cinderella is  more ‘independent’ than all the other Cinderellas put together? She’s still fucking Cinderella and she’s still too beautiful for words. 

It’s all about infantilizing, belittling, disempowering, and objectifying women. Period.

And we yell about the Muslim Fundamentalists who don’t allow their little girls to read.

What we do is far far worse.

Yes worse!

I know that little faggot reviewer who wears the bow tie on CBC (yes, I used that word faggot -- I am one, so I can use it!)  just wants to BE Cinderella. Which would be fine if he could just be honest about it.

But he can’t, and keep his job.

Fuck.

So there.

I’m hopping mad.

I’m sorry I swore so much — but Jesus Christ!

Fuck.

Some Reviews of DUNSTER PUTIN

Dunster Putin opened at Toronto’s Regional Civic Stage recently. It is a controversial new play by a contemporary American playwright from New York City. Below are excerpts from some of the  reviews.


The Globe and Mail:
 There is a play here, and the author has something to say about the decline of the western world. Our world is in fact, in decline, and many would say that the problems must be addressed. In Dunster Putin you will perhaps not find answers, but ‘finding the answers’ is not what art is for.
 Or is it?
 I for one enjoyed the play immensely. My companion did not; I don’t know what that means.
 Cranston Sullivan the director of the play and the artistic director of Toronto’s Regional Civic Stage has again proved that he is a man of vision. Always willing to experiment and stretch our insights — as well as our comfort zone, he has lately become an especially welcome addition to the Toronto theatre scene. Rumour has it that he is on the list of possible new artistic directors to take over the helm at the Shaw Festival.
 If so, so be it.
 I have nothing at all negative to say about this significant effort, except that it is tiresomely boring from beginning to end. 
 However, that is something you will soon forget, as it is only one small aspect of an engaging production that offers huge promise for the future of Canadian theatre.

The Toronto Star:
 There is one giant egg being laid at Toronto’s Regional Civic Stage, and it’s not by the hens in the audience clucking about this play's so-called ‘important’ message.
 I for one, couldn’t find a message here, though I searched — like Sherlock Holmes minus his Watson — trying to find one.
 Whatever happened to lights, glamour and entertainment?
 Call me old fashioned but I like my incomprehensible messages to be accompanied by  a little song and dance or at least a heart-wrenching storyline.
 Not here, though.
 Cranston Sullivan has yet again masterminded a mind boggling mess of tedious pretentious claptrap.
 Anything might save it — perhaps Sullivan should call up Sky Gilbert (notorious drag queen and ex-Artistic Director of Buddies in Bad Times Theatre) and have him lip synch a pop song or two!
 Frankly, anything would be better than this.
 And by the way some advice for husbands being dragged to the theatre by your wives — no need to take a valium before the show: Dunster Putin will put you to sleep.

The Toronto Sun:
 A fascinating show just premiered at Toronto’s Regional Civic Stage. It is a deep and meaningful play. It fairly drips with very long words and thoughts that form in the characters heads and are then, miraculously expressed through dialogue. You will be drawn to the important message of the play — as well as to the challenging costumes and sets expertly executed by Talia Sybrgnzovitch. The lighting design is more than pleasing and star of stage and screen Dolly Garden is superlative in the leading role.
 There is a lot of meat on this bone. This production is very important and is doing something every production must do;  be controversial, present day, and up-to-date!
 I won’t even attempt to get to the bottom of the complex and challenging ideas that populate this new vibrant play, I leave that to you. But it is definitely saying something.
 Now, for Mom and Dad: there is some explicit language. As with the new sex ed curriculum you may find it necessary to put your hands around your little codger’s ears (you know what they say about little pitchers)!
 But all in all, it’s worth the trip. 

Now Magazine:
 Cranston Sullivan’s new production may not be for everyone. But sometimes that can be good too. There are exciting ideas here, about women, feminism, and the modern so-called ‘rape culture.’ Not everyone will agree with these ideas.  Some, in fact will disagree. And that’s the way the world is — there are many diverse people, cultures, races and sexualities in it. And everyone has a different point of view. This production is well executed -- with Sullivan’s effortless direction, Garden’s gleaming performance, and Sybrgnzovitch’s expressive set. Keep a watch out for newcomer Lance Longsheath. He is a talented young ingenue to watch, for sure.

The Blogosphere:

 Run don’t walk to see this fabulous challenging production. Everything about it is great, important and meaningful. I highly recommend it. You should go and see this show right away, before it closes! If you don’t you will be missing out on something! It’s a very good show! It really is. You will enjoy it. Everything about it is perfect and super wonderful!

Please Don’t Blame Those Dental Students

The male dental students at Dalhousie University who recently exchanged offensive 

Facebook posts are not to blame for rape culture. Punishing these 13 young men — or trying to educate them — will just make things worse.

The administration of Dalhousie University is not to blame, either.

Who is to blame?

Us.

First let me explain my objections to the term ‘rape culture.’ The use of this term implies that there is something specific, localized or contemporary about a lack of respect for women, their bodies, and their rights as human beings. But misogyny is not unique to Dalhousie, or a bunch of dental students, to most university age males, or to some young basketball players in Ohio (remember the Steubenville scandal of 2012?). 

Our western culture is a rape culture, and it all started with Eve.

From your Bible studies, you will remember that Eve tempted Adam with the apple, and that she is the source of evil. From talking to any red-blooded Canadian fellow over a beer, you will learn that though he thinks women are ‘hot’ he also imagines that they are very different from men, and that— perhaps through no fault of their own — they are mysterious and somewhat dangerous creatures who traditionally and perpetually tempt men, introducing them to strange extremities of lust.

These poisonous and antiquated ideas are part of our sexist culture.

What to do?

The answer is education.

Presently the government of Ontario is trying to institute a new sex education curriculum. The program is receiving vocal opposition from Ontario’s fundamentalist religious community, the Toronto Sun, and certain ‘concerned individuals.’  But removing sex education from the school curriculum will not keep children ‘innocent.' (Children are not innocent!). It will merely validate the present rape culture. I’m not a parent myself, but I know parents, and little girls (yes little girls under 5 years old!) ask their parents about their vaginas and where babies come from. These children deserve detailed, honest answers. Knowledge that children may gain about sex and their own bodies is not ‘scary’  unless it is taught to them by those who are frightened of sex, or it is delivered in a clandestine way,

Similarly there are 98 universities in Canada and only half of them have Women’s Studies courses. Of the universities that do have Women’s Studies courses, not all have actual Women’s Studies programs. And if they do, those programs are often mixed in with generalized departments that focus on ‘human rights’ and ‘a better world.’ If you examine these Women’s Studies websites you will see that some are being phased out (McMaster’s, for instance). At Guelph (where I teach) the Women’s Studies program was phased out several years ago, the justification being that we are well beyond women’s studies issues, and that such issues are covered by gender studies programs anyway. (For the record, we don’t yet have a gender studies program yet at Guelph. We need one!)

But should the age of Women’s Studies over? Do all men now know that ‘no means no,’ and that a 'yes' from a woman must be an enthusiastic one?

No. And they won’t learn this lesson unless we stop blaming young men at universities who say politically incorrect things.  Like the young women they are verbally abusing, they too are victims of a fundamentally sexist culture. Instead, we must challenge the core misogyny that lies at the root of Western culture.

That will only happen through education.

That is, if we really want to change.

But do we?

So. What if you wanted to quit your job….

So, what if you had this really big deal job and you decided to quit it and you were gay but nobody knew it?

Or I guess what I mean is, what if some people kind of knew you were gay, but they couldn’t really say it publicly. And some people had ‘outed’ you — but not major newspapers. And people generally didn’t want to talk about the fact that you were gay because your boss was especially sensitive about it.

What then?

This is just a hypothetical situation. I’m not talking about anyone in particular.

So, anyway, what if you had this big deal job and you quit it, and everyone was asking “Why? Why did you do it?” And you had no answer?

I mean, why would that be?

Could it be because if you answered, it would necessarily involve your personal life, which means revealing that you are gay?

Sometimes, when a gay man quits his big deal job at a young age, it has to do with a lot of things that are related to actually, well…okay, well, to being gay.

For instance, gay men, historically, have  different relationships to power than straight men. I know when I quit my job as artistic director of Buddies in Bad times Theatre at 45 years old many years ago some were shocked. This is because straight white men don’t routinely surrender their power. Oh no. They hang onto it for dear life. But because I’m gay — I’m very aware of what it means NOT to be the dominant person in a relationship — in bed and out. So I have an ambivalent relationship to power. I recognize that being powerful is not always a good thing.

Also, gay men’s personal lives are complicated. Often, they spend their young lives wrestling over coming out. Then they have to deal with a screwed up gay world. (You’d better get married! You’d better not be promiscuous! Don’t get AIDS! Take a pill! You’d better be beautiful! You’d better prove to straights that you’re just as normal as they are!) Then they see the spectre of age looming — where there are very few positive gay role models they can aspire to.

Sometimes a gay man in his forties might quit his job just in order to GET a personal life. 

This is at a period in his life when most straight men are consolidating their assets and continuing boldly, relentlessly (heart attack be damned!) to move ahead.

I don’t want you to think that I have all the answers here. I’m not saying that I definitively know why some gay man approaching middle age would quit his job. In fact I don’t KNOW why. 

I’m just musing here.

So, anyway, if you do happen to hear of any man who suddenly quits his high powered job at age 45 and then doesn’t give a reason, it might just be because he’s gay, and in the closet, and reaching a kind of turning point in his life.

Then again, it might not.

I don’t know why I’m bringing this up now.

The thought just occurred to me, really.

The Made-up Issue of Religious Freedom

Today a National Post editorial informs us of a “A win for religious freedom.’ The headline refers to a recent decision by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to allow graduates of the Trinity Western University  to practice in that province. Trinity Western University — a private Christian institution in British Columbia — forbids its students to practice ‘sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.’

The notion of religious freedom in North America is a made up issue. We have religious freedom in North America, and have had it for many, many years. Religion is a private matter — between an individual and his or her God (or Gods). Religious freedom is an aspect of freedom of speech. It refers to the right of individuals to hold any beliefs they wish, to publish those beliefs, to speak about those beliefs publicly, and to worship at the alter of their choice. 

That’s it. 

That’s religious freedom — and yes, we do have it in North America.

Period.

The religious right in North America, however, has, for the last few years, been desperately attempting to make ‘religious freedom’ an issue — by pretending that we don’t have it. They are referring to instances when religious expression begins to enter the corporate, legal and/or government sphere.

The matter is not a sticky one, it is not complicated or contentious, as North America’s religious  fundamentalists would have us believe. Of course a person should have the right to wear a cross or a hijab in public. However if someone is operating a power tool in their job, they shouldn’t be allowed to wear a cross that could get caught in it. (Duh!) And yes, someone testifying on the witness stand should be required to show their face, as that is part of evaluating the honest of their testimony. 

Period.

This is not difficult to understand, is it? It’s quite clear when freedom of speech (or freedom of religion as the fundamentalists would have it) begins to cross over into activities that interfere with other people’s rights, freedoms and the rule of law. 

But ‘born again’ Christians won’t have it that way.

They would have us believe that not allowing a religious university to require it’s students to be chaste is an abridgement of that university’s freedom. No. This is merely requiring that a university not force its religious views on the general population.

Hey — I thought universities were about freedom of thought and exploration of ideas anyway. Not the propagation of one idea.

This brings us to another issue that springs from the Trinity Western University controversy. Some think that the university’s rules against ‘sexual intimacy’ are homophobic. Probably. But it’s  much more upsetting that these rules are anti-sexual.We want everyone to get married and have children and go to church these days. But whatever happened to sex? Whatever happened to sexual liberation? Why would anybody in their right mind want to prevent college age young people from being sexually intimate? Do you have any idea how anti-human that is? How such ideas destroy people’s lives and loves and sexual empowerment?

Human beings are sexual beings. And they need to have sex. Especially when they are young and in the prime of life. 

The folks at Trinity Western University are, in many ways,  a bewildering bunch. But what they are doing has nothing to do with religious freedom.

It has everything, however, to do with oppression in the name of religion.

Universities Must Move to the Forefront of Digital Innovation!

                Contemporary philosophy recognizes the increasing digitalization of our universe, and the consequent and inevitable rise of the trans-human. It is the responsibility of our post-secondary institutions to stand at the forefront of modern knowledge. And yet they have not kept pace with the latest technological advances in digital learning. It’s time for universities to step up to the plate and enter the modern world.

                Recent years have seen qualitative advances in academic awareness.  Sure, libraries and archives are increasingly to be found on line. Students no longer require living teachers; in fact that the old-fashioned ‘lecturer’ – standing behind a lectern and pontificating – has become an anachronism. With interactive interface technologies, students are provided with the opportunity to communicate with virtual instructors — that is, to participate in a traditional Socratic dialogue -- on ‘skype’ or through chat. Most understand that universities of the future will not require attendance to ‘classes’ (now a somewhat antique term) — but instead, will be accessible to everyone, online, 24 hours a day.

                However, we’re only halfway there.

                The focus in recent years has been on coming to terms with the demise of the traditional notion of ‘professor.’ But the future requires a significant re-imagining of the presently outmoded concept of ‘student.’ So what will the universities of the future look like? In the past, students were assumed to be living breathing human beings. It is become increasingly clear that -- in the 21st century -- students will be replaced by machines. To speak quite frankly, post-secondary education will consist of computers teaching other computers.

                This will be a difficult notion for many to accept. Older academics may still feel nostalgic for the dusty domain of textbooks and libraries, where grey haired professors shook their heads, and stretched their gnarled fingers to ‘make a point’ with eager, breathing undergraduates. But those days are over. The future of education will not only see the eradication of professors but the eradication of students as well.

                Think about it.

Humans learn more slowly and less efficiently than machines. It is quite simply old-fashioned to imagine that humans can be entrusted with a commodity as priceless as knowledge.  In addition, it’s important to remember that  in the future most of us will need more time  to complete our arduous shopping and purchasing tasks -- and also more time to consume the massive amounts of digital entertainment that are available to us through various platforms such as itunes, Amazon and Netflix. We are online 24 hours a day anyway -- shopping, flirting, chatting, being entertained and entertaining others -- and ‘de-stressing’ from our complex 21st century lives.  We routinely rely on computers to store, analyze and distribute knowledge, anyway.  Isn’t it time that computers, rather than people, went to school?

                There’s no turning back. The time has come for universities replace students with computers and be at the very forefront of digital innovation.