the young people's professor

This morning Los Angeles "activist" Jasmine Cannick responded to my post yesterday which expressed frustration at her flippant references to Devin Wiley "dropping dead." Not surprisingly, my post was met with a host of accusations and slanderous comments.

Though i'm already bored of this game, i'll go ahead and the take the time to respond---again. First off, these accusations of me “selling out” are truly amusing.

In other words, trust me, if I wanted to sell out, I woulda aimed a little higher, no shade. With all due respect, Flavaworks doesn’t have the power or money to “buy me out.” The New York Times, The Daily News, The San Francisco Chronicle—maybe. Flavalife Magazine? Uh, no.

Other than a free trip to a few balls (all of which I could have easily had “taken care of” by house members) I’ve gained absolutely nothing but criticisms and a few pissed-off readers.

You people kill me. I’ve done the exact opposite of selling out. Let’s be real here: It would have been so much easier for me to just jump on the anti-Flavaworks bandwagon; yell at Phillip Bleicher for being white, join hands with Keith and Jasmine and make Gay Black America proud. That would have been a much easier route. I would have never had to deal with these nagging criticisms. However, unlike some of you, I refuse to be a slave to public opinion.

Which brings me to Jasmine Cannick. Jasmine, I know you’re reading this: I’m just wondering at what point did Phil Bleicher’s whiteness start to bother you—before or after you collected your last check from him? Clearly Phil Bleicher is as white now as he was back in August when you were paid to write for Flavalife Magazine. I’m trying to gain clarity as to when his whiteness started to “appall” you?

Did the “modern day slavery,” begin before or after you stopped collecting checks? It amazes me how people refuse to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, the black porn stars at Flavaworks are no more "exploited" working then Jasmyne was she while she worked for the company. Clearly I am a "race man"---I talk about race all day, everyday. But that does not mean that I will throw around "race cards" just because its adds a salacious, scandalous element to their argument.

Jasmine, can you explain to me whether or not the “modern day slavery” was at work when you contributed to the following issues of Flavalife Magazine:

• September and October 2005
• January and February 2006
• March and April 2006
• May and June 2006
• July and August 2006
  
• 
  

Oh, ok. I’ll wait.

Now on to the real issues.

Issue One: Devin’s Death

First, I will make no apologies for being angered that neither Keith nor Jasmyne acknowledged the death of Devin outside of the context of mentioning it as a mere subtext to the supposedly “bigger” story of Jasmine being sued.

Further, I found (and still find) it problematic that these posts (particularly Jasmine's) seemed hell-bent on suggesting that Devin’s death was somehow related to the supposed “naughtiness” of Flavaworks. Jasmine asks, “what grown man dies of pneumonia?” as if to suggest that the company was “covering up something again. "

However, what Nancy Drew failed to investigate was that Devin’s pneumonia, though caused by an immuno-deficiency, was not AIDS : he had full blown Sickle Cell Anemia.

My critique of Keith and Jasmyne’s posts had less to do with their on-going public beefs with Flavaworks, and more so do to with how Devin’s death became a vehicle for people to read "between the lines." Much of the subtext of Jasmine's post clearly reads as “oh, he must have AIDS.” Furthermore, Devin’s death was framed as simply a platform to talk about the “larger issue”: big, bad, Flavaworks. I’m not having it. The shit should have waited.

Now when I say that “it should have waited,” clearly I’m not suggesting that calling attention to racism or STD infections should be put “on hold” when people die. No. What I am saying rather is: #1) These so-called “critiques” against Flavaworks have been speculative and hypocritical from the beginning (more often based on media frenzy rather than actual, close observations); and #2) There was nothing “new” about this story that warranted a post, only the added superficiality of Jasmine being sued. The tone of Jasmine’s post is blatantly clear: “who gives a fuck about Devin Wiley ‘dropping dead,’ a white man is suing me and I’m pissed.”

Issue Two: Raw Sex on Video, Black Men and Contemporary HIV/AIDS Activism

Clearly, as an advocate and an activist, I want all black men to live productive lives, free of disease and bodily suffering. However, as an activist, I also believe in promoting a culture of sexual freedom that allows grown people to freely engage in the type of sexual acts they want to (so long as it is consensual and they are in control of their bodies). So yes, this means that if grown ass men decide that they want to fuck raw on video and get paid for it, their basic rights as a sexual citizens should allow them to do so.

I believe in grown person’s right to choose. One of the reasons that HIV/AIDS prevention has failed in the black gay community is “activists” have decided that “prevention” means playing the role of the sex police. Explain to me how someone else’s decision to have consensual raw sex on video impedes upon another person’s decision NOT too? Perhaps I’m just an old-school feminist radical, but I do not see a relationship between visual representations of sex and people’s actual everyday sexual practices.

If the logic behind condemning raw sex videos is that we are afraid that the people who view them will be more likely to engage in unsafe sex, what explanation do we have for why safe-sex porn videos are not mirrored in people’s actual sex practices? In other words, if there’s some mimetic relationship between what’s represented on the screen and what occurs in the bedroom, why aren’t all of the people who are watching gay porn engaging in safe sex? After all, the overwhelming majority of gay sex porn is “safe sex” right? Bobby Blake and Tiger Tyson always “wrap it up” right? Then why—following to the representation-influences-reality theory—aren’t people just mirroring what they see on the screen? Why isn’t everyone in real life actually fucking “safe” and “protected,” just like all of their favorite safe-sex porn stars?

Why? Because there is absolutely no relationship between representations of sex and people’s actual sexual practices—indeed, the very basis for pornography is to provide a space of visual fantasy.

Never in my life have I been sitting in bed with a guy, about to fuck, and turned to a porno to give me “pointers” as to how it should go down. Regardless of whether or not Tiger Tyson was busy beating it up doggie style on screen, I didn’t decide to follow suit unless that’s what I WANTED to do. Also, I never recall using a condom simply because I saw the models in a porn video using them and somehow I felt “pressured” to mimic their actions

Some of you sex-cops idiots amaze me. Oe of the reasons that I consider myself an “activist,” is not solely because I advocate for “safe sex,” but also because I defend the rights of men whose sexual practices are different from my own.

To offer a few crude, though useful, analogues: I don’t smoke weed, but you’re not going to find me launching a campaign against men who do. I don’t use drugs but I will always defend another gay man’s right to engage in those activities if he so chooses to. I do not personally “believe” in abortion, but I will endlessly defend a woman’s right to choose. I’m not an escort, but you will never find me condemning men who do have sex for financial exchanges.

Furthermore, I do believe that the mere presence of representations of these acts (by they through porn, fiction, or any other aspect of popular culture) is going to somehow coax me into engaging in these activities.

Contemporary HIV/AIDS activism cannot be reduced to simply condemnations of people for having bareback sex on video. Just as is it is my choice as a grown ass man not to engage in that behavior, I understand another grown man’s choice to not only disagree, but also fuck raw on video if he wants to.

Contemporary black LGBT HIV/AIDS activism must promote a culture of sexual responsibility that teaches people that they are agents of their own bodies—not the activist “sex police” chiefs of our community. Just because YOU are committed to having “safe sex,” you do not have the right to launch a crusade against those in our community who have decided to do things differently—especially if they’re doing it with THEIR bodies, not yours.

We are activists, not parents. I will continue to support and practice safe-sex in my everyday life. I will also continue to support the rights to venues of public expression for those who choose not to.

It's actually that simple.

Posted by the young people's professor on 7/19/2007 at 2:55:00 PM | Permalink