Flux

[Kitt]

Brad, Wade, Alex, Matt: OMFG. What the hell is wrong with you people? Got all this $$$/£££ and y'all can't spring for a condom at the 7-11???

While I totally agree in theory - there are a couple things that make me say you are carrying that statement a bit too far.

 

Brad/Robbie was supposedly a committed relationship = no need for condoms

 

Wade/Alex G  not to that stage yet - and in light of current events I am sure a sufficient supply will be on hand

 

Brad/Kevin  condoms were used

 

Now - as for the rest of that tangled web of sexual relations - about the only ones I can really condemn is anyone who slept with Cody, and possibly Alex D.

 

Anyone who will bareback someone knowing they are as easy as Cody - be they male OR female - is out of their cotton picking minds!  Ultimately it was KEVIN'S responsibility to protect HIMSELF.   It was not Cody's responsibility to protect Kevin, altho he certainly should be honest and up front about these things. I am sure he had no idea he was positive when he slept with Kevin, and the same applies if it were Kevin who infected Cody. 

 

Just an observation here about HIV transmission - while the risk is greatly reduced during oral sex, HIV can be transmitted through saliva. The tissue under the tongue is permeable and the preferred method of administration of certain drugs such as nitro glycerin for heart issues, and can be a source of infection with BBP's.  There is always the chance of a sharp tooth creating a break in skin during oral as well allowing an HIV positive participant to infect a partner that way as well.

[Daddydavek]

While Kitt has already said it, there is no "safe" sex, but there are the obvious ways to make it safer.  These guys all know that and for the most part have been responsible.  The problem is that we are all human and while we want to trust our partners they are human too and can make mistakes.  Further, HIV does not automatically sentence anyone with access to decent health care to dying with AIDS.  

 

The saga has dealt with HIV and AIDS in the past and it would be somewhat unrealistic if it didn't have to continue to deal with the problem as it is ongoing and will be for the foreseeable future.  

 

So the drama is in the personal reactions of the characters as they find out if they have to deal with a new reality, one that is fraught with danger and to a large extent prejudice, even among the gay community where being positive is a negative and being negative is a positive as for as meeting new people....

[Mark Arbour]

I think it's really unfair to come down hard on Cody, Kevin, or Alex until/unless we know the details.  The only thing that was problematic, IMHO, was Kevin sleeping with Brad without telling him.  The way Kevin reacted after sex with Brad makes me think that his feelings for Brad are pretty developed, and he probably knew that he'd blown it.  That, or he may just have been in denial. 

 

We've seen the immediate family members struggle with the post-9.11 world, but we haven't really seen how it impacted the peripheral figures like Cody and Kevin...until now.  I haven't done as much research on this as I need to, but at this juncture, HIV wasn't like it was when Brad was in college.  We also have the new phenomenon of the bug chasers.     I can see how Cody and Kevin would let their struggles with what happened on 9-11 impact their attitudes.  It would be really easy, in their situation, to just say fuck it. 

 

I also think that it's unfair to blame this on Cody.  Cody is a top (with a few exceptions), so the chances that he would get it in the first place are smaller.  It's quite possible that neither Kevin nor Cody knows how they got it (from whom), or that they will. 

[Headstall]

I think it's really unfair to come down hard on Cody, Kevin, or Alex until/unless we know the details.  The only thing that was problematic, IMHO, was Kevin sleeping with Brad without telling him.  The way Kevin reacted after sex with Brad makes me think that his feelings for Brad are pretty developed, and he probably knew that he'd blown it.  That, or he may just have been in denial. 

 

We've seen the immediate family members struggle with the post-9.11 world, but we haven't really seen how it impacted the peripheral figures like Cody and Kevin...until now.  I haven't done as much research on this as I need to, but at this juncture, HIV wasn't like it was when Brad was in college.  We also have the new phenomenon of the bug chasers.     I can see how Cody and Kevin would let their struggles with what happened on 9-11 impact their attitudes.  It would be really easy, in their situation, to just say fuck it. 

 

I also think that it's unfair to blame this on Cody.  Cody is a top (with a few exceptions), so the chances that he would get it in the first place are smaller.  It's quite possible that neither Kevin nor Cody knows how they got it (from whom), or that they will. 

 

I have a lot of experience with this exact situation...in exactly the same time frame as this. I fell in love with someone and spent three months getting to know him before sleeping with him. After our first sexual encounter(oral)...I asked him if he was healthy( it was the next morning). He answered that he was positive...and my world fell apart...without too much detail...I had a lot of therapy...help from various aids organizations...researched in every way that I could(believe it or not, even though I was angry he didn't tell me, I was very concerned about him and what his future entailed). The fact was that we loved each other...so my fears were allayed and I armed myself with all the knowledge I could get regarding safe sex and we set about to make US work. We lasted 4.5 years and had a great sex life...and I am proof that safe sex works. There is no point in laying blame or condemning someone for contracting this disease...there are so many factors that can be involved (booze,drugs,condom failure, depression, broken trust etc, etc) and we are all human and can get carried away easily. All we can do is arm ourselves with all the knowledge available and be as safe as possible and have compassion for those that have to endure this disease and it's stigma. I won't discuss what safe sex is...that is for each of us to find out for ourselves but I will say that there are a lot of misconceptions out there(I must point out though that tops are definitely at risk...although, as Mark said the risk is a little smaller). I think when you factor in the devastation wreaked by 911, that it would be reasonable to assume that people personally touched by it would be more prone to let their guard down...and that doesn't make them bad people...it just makes them human. Living with HIV is hard enough without the haters. Maybe I have shared too much but it is a topic that is so close to home for me.

[davewri]

It is in most cases a felony for a HIV positive person who is aware of their status to engage in a sexual act without informing their partner(s).

If you know you are positive you have a moral and legal obligation to let the other person know.

God knows we all are weak and can make mistakes, but there is no excuse for reckless endangerment.

[Kitt]

It is in most cases a felony for a HIV positive person who is aware of their status to engage in a sexual act without informing their partner(s).

 

Now it is. Was it that way in '02?

 

I still maintain it is no one's responsibility but me to protect myself from STD's including HIV.  Should an HIV+ be upfront and honest? Hell yeah. Should I blame anyone but myself if I have unprotected sex and contract a disease? NOPE.

[Henson]

Felony... and yet do the same thing when you're positive for Hepatitis C, with actually WILL eventually kill you and is much easier to catch, and you cannot be charged.

 

It is not reckless endangerment, and it shouldn't be a felony.  Those stupid laws (and they are stupid) were a social reaction to the hysteria perpetuated in the late 80's, and the pendulum is slowly swinging back to match reality.  Pointing to the law and using that asinine criminalization fad to heap even more stigma on positive people is stupid and counterproductive, and conveniently absolves the negative person from any responsibility whatsoever to take care of himself.

 

Yes, positive people have a moral obligation to disclose their status.  No, they are not trying to kill anyone if they don't.  There's a moderate position in there somewhere which actually makes sense and will help people. 

 

Me?  I assume everyone is positive, but doesn't know it yet - then I act accordingly.  It's served me well so far.

 

Frankly, I feel safer with the guy who tells me up front that he's positive than I do with the guy who swears he's negative, but who also hasn't been tested in 5 years.  The guy who discloses to me is showing he's responsible, and he probably has his viral load suppressed, as opposed to the guy acting like an ostrich and pretending it could never happen to him - until he winds up sick with a 200,000+ viral load and a chain of broken lives in his wake.

[davewri]

I have personally lost  two friends who were infected by a deceitful person.  I see things differently.

[Headstall]

Felony... and yet do the same thing when you're positive for Hepatitis C, with actually WILL eventually kill you and is much easier to catch, and you cannot be charged.

 

It is not reckless endangerment, and it shouldn't be a felony.  Those stupid laws (and they are stupid) were a social reaction to the hysteria perpetuated in the late 80's, and the pendulum is slowly swinging back to match reality.  Pointing to the law and using that asinine criminalization fad to heap even more stigma on positive people is stupid and counterproductive, and conveniently absolves the negative person from any responsibility whatsoever to take care of himself.

 

Yes, positive people have a moral obligation to disclose their status.  No, they are not trying to kill anyone if they don't.  There's a moderate position in there somewhere which actually makes sense and will help people. 

 

Me?  I assume everyone is positive, but doesn't know it yet - then I act accordingly.  It's served me well so far.

 

Frankly, I feel safer with the guy who tells me up front that he's positive than I do with the guy who swears he's negative, but who also hasn't been tested in 5 years.  The guy who discloses to me is showing he's responsible, and he probably has his viral load suppressed, as opposed to the guy acting like an ostrich and pretending it could never happen to him - until he winds up sick with a 200,000+ viral load and a chain of broken lives in his wake.

 

I think that you have pretty much covered it perfectly, especially your point about viral load. Being undetectable is monumental in tipping the scales of safe sex. And you are right to always assume that everyone is positive and thus do your best to not take chances. Sure, I was angry that I wasn't told about my partner's status...but I didn't ask either. I know that if I did he would have told me the truth, even though he was terrified of losing me. When I could eventually put myself in his place, I came to realize how hard it was for him...he just wanted to be happy like everyone else. The best thing I ever did was let my anger go and realize that our love was not going to go away and with the right precautions, it was workable...no regrets here...until he was unfaithful

[impunity]

Let's all keep in mind that Alex is a link to the Bridgemont family. I don't think Mark will sacrifice George Granger's legacy by allowing Alex to be anything other than a gentleman.

Technically, Alex Granger is Freddie's legacy. And we know that Freddie was not always a gentleman. Also, I can't imagine any of George's descendants' being described as boring in bed.

Edited July 3, 2014 by impunity

[impunity]

Just an observation here about HIV transmission - while the risk is greatly reduced during oral sex, HIV can be transmitted through saliva. The tissue under the tongue is permeable and the preferred method of administration of certain drugs such as nitro glycerin for heart issues, and can be a source of infection with BBP's.  There is always the chance of a sharp tooth creating a break in skin during oral as well allowing an HIV positive participant to infect a partner that way as well.

 

Apologies for being pedantic, but HIV is not present in saliva, although there is a low risk of transmission if an infected person has sores in the mouth or bleeding gums, as blood can mix with the saliva. Nor does it pass easily through intact oral mucosa (the tissue inside the mouth).  The greatest risk from oral sex (although still pretty low) is if an HIV-positive man ejaculates in your mouth, especially if you have mouth sores or other breaks in the tissue.  Absorption of medications through the tissues of the mouth is by a different mechanism.

 

Sorry, that got a bit longwinded and boring.

Edited July 3, 2014 by impunity

[Mark Arbour]

Apologies for being pedantic, but HIV is not present in saliva, although there is a low risk of transmission if an infected person has sores in the mouth or bleeding gums, as blood can mix with the saliva. Nor does it pass easily through intact oral mucosa (the tissue inside the mouth).  The greatest risk from oral sex (although still pretty low) is if an HIV-positive man ejaculates in your mouth, especially if you have mouth sores or other breaks in the tissue.  Absorption of medications through the tissues of the mouth is by a different mechanism.

 

Sorry, that got a bit longwinded and boring.

 

Damn it:  no more swallowing.

[impunity]

Damn it:  no more swallowing.

 

I said it was boring.  

Edited July 3, 2014 by impunity

[Daddydavek]

In response to my review of the latest chapter, Mark indicated it was a control issue for Brad that had him tell Matt not to tell Will what was going on.  I thought it was just Brad being the over-protective dad which Will also hates.  In either case, we see how far that went and I guess we can expect Will to unload on Brad next time he catches up with him---unless Brad turns up positive in which case Will's nurturing side will kick in all over again. Possibly a really ironic situation.

 

However, before that it seems a trip to Claremont is on tap?

[methodwriter85]

Polo shirt, shorts and flip flops? What has been Stefan doing all these years?

 

 

      Matt's never been that much of a clotheshorse. He knows when to dress up, but it's not really a focus with him.

 

      And with Will, Mark's been consistent with the fact that Will doesn't really give a damn about clothing.

 

      Wade and JJ are the clotheshorses for this generation.

[Mark Arbour]

      Matt's never been that much of a clotheshorse. He knows when to dress up, but it's not really a focus with him.

 

      And with Will, Mark's been consistent with the fact that Will doesn't really give a damn about clothing.

 

      Wade and JJ are the clotheshorses for this generation.

 

I'm with you on all of this except your inclusion of Wade.  I don't see Wade as a 'clotheshorse', rather, I see him dressing in expensive preppy clothes.  I can't imagine Wade wearing the latest fashions like JJ and Stef would.

[impunity]

 

Reply from Mark Arbour (author)

 

I figured that even if I wasn't willing to indulge in that drug that is patriotism, you all may want to. :-)

 

I did some research, and all I could find in 2002, for clubs in Boystown (that looked interesting) were Manhole and Circuit.

 

I don't really see the point of overt patriotism, but I'll take my CAP fix wherever I can get it. *smile* 

 

Honestly, I think the single bar references (especially when Will is being cheeky) work really well as a recurring joke. I lived right outside Boystown in 2002, but I wasn't hanging out in the bars and I couldn't tell you which were interesting. Actually, I'm not even sure if I can remember them at this point. Haha! I do know of a couple of bathouses, though. And one very dodgy bookstore, if you're aiming for sleaze.

[mmike1969]

So which one was sleazy? The bookstore or bathhouse?

[impunity]

So which one was sleazy? The bookstore or bathhouse?

Well, I don't really have firsthand experience of either.

[Mark Arbour]

Well, I don't really have firsthand experience of either.

 

What's the penalty for lying in a forum?

[impunity]

What's the penalty for lying in a forum?

A severe tongue lashing, I believe.

[apjordan]

When I lived in Chicago (1994-2000), I never spent much time in Boystown and never got into the club scene there. But reading about some of these clubs in Flux is definitely bringing back details I might not otherwise have recalled...

 

Quoting Mark from the Reviews:

 

I did some research, and all I could find in 2002, for clubs in Boystown (that looked interesting) were Manhole and Circuit.

 

SideTrack and Roscoe's were both incredibly popular in the late 90s. And since they're still going strong today, I expect they were still big deals in 2002. SideTrack was very popular with the UChicago gay crowd in the 90s (though I can't speak for the B-schoolers), so perhaps Matt's classmates can nudge him in that direction.

 

My recollection of Manhole (which I never went in) is that it was very forbidding—a stark blacked-out glass storefront that suggested a very nasty backroom—and very much a club of the established (and slightly older) serious partying community, for whom it was almost a sacred space. Their print ads ran to the raunchy side of Tom of Finland. It wasn't a place for people who were unsure of themselves.

 

I did some googling to check on its fate, as I was pretty sure it's not there anymore: It doesn't last much longer than its current appearance in Flux. It closes at the beginning of May 2003 and is replaced a month later by Hydrate. Today, Hydrate hosts occasional "Manhole Night" events, in commemoration of its predecessor. Stories about the opening of Hydrate seem to suggest that the Manhole was in desperate need of a major overhaul/remodel by the time it closed due to years of poor maintenance (minds out of the gutters, boys!). That could make an interesting complement to the renovations at Spartacus.

[impunity]

SideTrack was definitely popular in 2002. Not sure how Mark is defining "interesting" though.

 

About halfway between Boystown and Evanston is Big Chicks. Now that's a fun bar!

[Kitt]

Apologies for being pedantic, but HIV is not present in saliva, although there is a low risk of transmission if an infected person has sores in the mouth or bleeding gums, as blood can mix with the saliva.

Very interesting. That directly contradicts the information given in the Blood Born Pathogens class I completed three days ago in which saliva is classified as OPIM - other potentially infectious materials.

[Daddydavek]

Here is a copy of the information put out by the U.S. Center for Disease control.

 

Here is the link to the website:   http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/transmission.html

 

In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by having sex or sharing injection drug equipment such as needles with someone who has HIV.

Only certain fluids—blood, semen (cum), pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum), rectal fluids, vaginal fluids, and breast milk—from an HIV-infected person can transmit HIV. These fluids must come in contact with a mucous membrane or damaged tissue or be directly injected into the bloodstream (from a needle or syringe) for transmission to possibly occur. Mucous membranes can be found inside the rectum, the vagina, the opening of the penis, and the mouth.

 

In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by

• Having sex with someone who has HIV. In general:
  • Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. Receptive anal sex (bottoming) is riskier than insertive anal sex (topping).
  • Vaginal sex is the second highest-risk sexual behavior.
  • Having multiple sex partners or having other sexually transmitted infections can increase the risk of infection through sex.
• Sharing needles, syringes, rinse water, or other equipment (works) used to prepare injection drugs with someone who has HIV.

Less commonly, HIV may be spread by

• Being born to an infected mother. HIV can be passed from mother to child during pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding.
• Being stuck with an HIV-contaminated needle or other sharp object. This is a risk mainly for health care workers.
• Receiving blood transfusions, blood products, or organ/tissue transplants that are contaminated with HIV. This risk is extremely small because of rigorous testing of the US blood supply and donated organs and tissues.
• Eating food that has been pre-chewed by an HIV-infected person. The contamination occurs when infected blood from a caregiver’s mouth mixes with food while chewing, and is very rare.
• Being bitten by a person with HIV. Each of the very small number of documented cases has involved severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood. There is no risk of transmission if the skin is not broken.
• Oral sex—using the mouth to stimulate the penis, vagina, or anus (fellatio, cunnilingus, and rimming). Giving fellatio (mouth to penis oral sex) and having the person ejaculate (cum) in your mouth is riskier than other types of oral sex.
• Contact between broken skin, wounds, or mucous membranes and HIV-infected blood or blood-contaminated body fluids. These reports have also been extremely rare.
• Deep, open-mouth kissing if the person with HIV has sores or bleeding gums and blood is exchanged. HIV is not spread through saliva. Transmission through kissing alone is extremely rare.