AIDS in the Mind of America

In the reading, “AIDS in the mind of America”, Dennis Altman discusses the rise of the AIDS epidemic and its impact on the gay community. In relation to a move by health officials to close down popular bathhouses of the time (which inevitably would affect gay sex culture), Altman poses the question for thought: “what should be the respective roles of individuals, businesses, community organizations and the state in fostering such changes?” (Altman, 156). Where should the line be drawn between private matters and public concerns? In my opinion, there is no one, clear-cut answer for this question. Bathhouses played a key function in gay culture in the mid 1980s, in that it was essentially a safe haven for gay men to engage in sexual activities. With the rise and wildfire spread of the AIDS virus, from one aspect, it can be understood why it seemed necessary that community organizations and the state intervene: public education and consciousness raising are usually left up to them. However, this becomes complicated considering that AIDS was primarily viewed as a “gay disease” and essentially a “gay problem” by the society in general, thus hindering effective education and consciousness raising because of this bias. Douglas Crimp addresses this issue in his critique of Randy Shilt’s book “And the Band Played On” when Crimp comments: “The idea of AIDS as a gay disease occasioned two interconnected conditions in the US: that AIDS would be an epidemic of stigmatization rooted in homophobia, and that the response to AIDS would depend in very large measure on the …gay movement…” (Crimp, 250)

This offers a transition into the role of the media in AIDS awareness and the promotion of safe sex practices. Since AIDS was viewed only as a gay disease, the media portrayed it that way, capitalizing on the stereotypes of the gay community, as well as on America’s ignorance of gay sex practices.
Eventually, the education on AIDS was no longer about AIDS: it was about discouraging gay sex practices, which reflected the deeply homophobic beliefs of the time. For example, Crimp discusses an amendment in 1988 under Senator Helms in which it stated “none of the funds made available under this Act to the Centers for Disease Control shall be used to provide AIDS education, information or prevention materials and activities that promote or encourage, directly, or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities” (Crimp, 264). Here it is evident that it was not about preventing even further the spread of a virus, but about preventing the practice of gay sex.

Returning to Altman’s question posed earlier, when the widely held belief is very biased and homophobic, should it still be able to promote “educational” materials for the equally biased homophobic community? It makes me wonder, who were their actually audience? Crimp addresses one aspect of this issue when he suggests: “…instead of the specific, concrete languages of those whose behaviors put them at risk for AIDS, community values require a universal language that no one speaks and many do not understand…“Don’t exchange bodily fluids” is nobody’s spoken language. “Don’t come in his ass” or “pull out before you come” is what we say…” (Crimp, 265).
Considering the attitude of the state towards gay education and the manner in which “consciousness raising” occurred, it seems like the message being sent out was actually counterproductive to the message that needed to be heard. That message being that safe sex could still be practiced without sacrificing intimacy.

*Note: A friend of mine found this vid. on condoms and AIDS awareness directed towards gay men and sent it my way...Check it out!