7 ms·

In Memory of Jesse Helms and the Condom on His House (2008)

123 points by GuiA 8y ago

chimeracoder 8y ago
Ironically, to this day, condoms are not (and have never been) formally tested for their efficacy in use by gay men, either in the US or Europe. The standards for producing condoms set by the relevant regulatory bodies are only designed for vaginal sex. Jesse Helms's work is a big reason for that, so his "legacy" sadly lives on today. Condoms remain the second-best means of preventing HIV transmission through sexual activity, and it's heartbreaking to think of how many more lives could have been saved without these bigoted policies.
- wnoise 8y ago
  Second best? Are you considering PrEP? Because that has the significant downside of being very expensive, as well as a few side effects, some of which can be significant. Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex.
  - Doxin 8y ago
    First best is probably abstinence, assuming you can actually keep that up.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > Second best? Are you considering PrEP? Because that has the significant downside of being very expensive PrEP is not very expensive. In th US, in fact, almost everyone is able to get it for free. > as well as a few side effects, some of which can be significant The side effects are incredibly rare, except for people just starting a regime, when they may experience mild symptoms. > Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it.
    - wahern 8y ago
      > Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it. Huh? There is evidence that abstinence-only works better than nothing. See, e.g., https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/382798 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). And condoms have a failure rate, too, both in actual use and in adherence. Abstinence-only sucks because it has comparatively poor efficacy, and because teaching abstinence is not mutually exclusive with other approaches. There is no pre-programmed amount of sex people have to have. Promiscuity in the U.S. is dramatically lower today than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
morley 8y ago
What a great story. I really like the use of humor to defang. To me, that feels a lot more effective than wrath or spite.
- Theodores 8y ago
  Yes, I had not thought of it that way even though it has been obvious since school days. The pertinent quote is worth remembering because it covered all the bases and was so well explained: "One of the best tools an activist can use is humor. If you can get folks laughing at your target’s expense, you diminish his power. I wanted the country to have a good laugh at Helms’ expense. I wanted his fellow senators to have a little chuckle behind his back. And I wanted Senator Helms to realize that his free ride was up - if he hit us again, we’d hit back." The article was written after the event, I wonder how well thought out some of the nuances were before the event, e.g. the fellow senators having a chuckle behind his back or that power is diminished.
seba_dos1 8y ago
When you'll trace this word back to its origins, this is an amazing hack :) I'm glad that someone thought about posting it here.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Which word?
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Helms.
CapitalistCartr 8y ago
I remember my first friends that posted a sign on their front door requesting people not smoke in their house. Then, I thought it so very bold. I remember when the police thought beating up gays laughable, and my dad sneering, "Queer as a three-dollar bill." Now, I just attended the local Pride parade and the police were having a great time as participants. We can look in the past at these changes, but people had to live their whole lives like that. Not really citizens, not really people. Anita Bryant was actually popular in my State.
- mherdeg 8y ago
  Any guesses on what's next? What do you suppose, in retrospect 30 years from now, will seem crazy that we all did?
  - steve_g 8y ago
    I wonder what future generations will _despise_ us for. For which behaviors or beliefs will they take down our statues, remove our portraits from display, take our names off memorials, and revile us as evil?
    - aplummer 8y ago
      Maybe how we treat refugees, or watch Syrians being bombed on the news before carrying on with our day.
    - ShabbosGoy 8y ago
      Nothing, because after a certain point, only artificial and semi-synthetic life will exist.
    - girvo 8y ago
      For Australia (where I'm from), it's certain to be our treatment of asylum seekers arriving via boats. It's absolutely disgusting how our government and a lot of society want to treat them.
    - winter_blue 8y ago
olivermarks 8y ago
It's easy to forget, because of the light hearted tone of the essay, that this was actually an incredibly brave thing to do at that time.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  Yeah it could have easily gone horribly wrong. But I was still surprised by how lightly the police took it and how easily they got off (a parking ticket). It feels like if the same thing happened with the SWAT-and-terrorism-horny law enforcement we have today, they would be locked up under some vague national security charge and not just be allowed to drive off.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  But I imagine that in the moment of bravery this person had a light heart. Courage is freeing.
poster123 8y ago
From the article: 'He once said, referring to homosexuals, “it’s their deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct that is responsible for the disease.”' The sexual practices of male homosexuals are the reason they have a much higher prevalence of AIDS. If we can discourage cigarette smoking because it causes lung cancer, why can't we discourage the behaviors that spread AIDS?
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  It's not a point that can be addressed honestly. Expect to be down voted massively...
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    Honestly, "safer sex" campaigns have been a success, while telling people "anal sex is bad so don't do it" hasn't been. Also, demonizing gay men over anal sex has been successful for centuries, even though lots of heterosexuals also engage in it. That's what comes to my my mind when you mention honesty.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wolfgang42 8y ago
  You can discourage the behaviors (or better, encourage safer ones), and this is a very good idea. However, per the article, Senator Helms was blaming and reviling the people involved (“There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy”) and actively discouraging any attempts to fund prevention measures which would reduce the spread of the disease. This is precisely the opposite of your suggestion, but the way you have phrased your commment suggests that you are condoning his behaviour. I guess that this (and not the other commenter's claim that your point “[cannot] be addressed honestly”) is why you are being downvoted.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 8y ago
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Besides opening the rented ladder in the motel parking lot, we never did an actual walk-through as practice. Impressive.

123 points by GuiA 8y ago

Ironically, to this day, condoms are not (and have never been) formally tested for their efficacy in use by gay men, either in the US or Europe. The standards for producing condoms set by the relevant regulatory bodies are only designed for vaginal sex. Jesse Helms's work is a big reason for that, so his "legacy" sadly lives on today. Condoms remain the second-best means of preventing HIV transmission through sexual activity, and it's heartbreaking to think of how many more lives could have been saved without these bigoted policies.

wnoise 8y ago
Second best? Are you considering PrEP? Because that has the significant downside of being very expensive, as well as a few side effects, some of which can be significant. Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex.
- Doxin 8y ago
  First best is probably abstinence, assuming you can actually keep that up.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > Second best? Are you considering PrEP? Because that has the significant downside of being very expensive PrEP is not very expensive. In th US, in fact, almost everyone is able to get it for free. > as well as a few side effects, some of which can be significant The side effects are incredibly rare, except for people just starting a regime, when they may experience mild symptoms. > Abstaining has the significant downside of not having sex Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it.
  - wahern 8y ago
    > Abstinence isn't considered a means of prevention because telling people "be abstinent" doesn't work. We have the data to prove it. Huh? There is evidence that abstinence-only works better than nothing. See, e.g., https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/382798 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... The model-estimated probability of ever having sexual intercourse by the 24-month follow-up was 33.5% in the abstinence-only intervention and 48.5% in the control group. Fewer abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6%) than control participants (29.0%) reported having coitus in the previous 3 months during the follow-up period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). And condoms have a failure rate, too, both in actual use and in adherence. Abstinence-only sucks because it has comparatively poor efficacy, and because teaching abstinence is not mutually exclusive with other approaches. There is no pre-programmed amount of sex people have to have. Promiscuity in the U.S. is dramatically lower today than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

morley 8y ago

What a great story. I really like the use of humor to defang. To me, that feels a lot more effective than wrath or spite.

Theodores 8y ago
Yes, I had not thought of it that way even though it has been obvious since school days. The pertinent quote is worth remembering because it covered all the bases and was so well explained: "One of the best tools an activist can use is humor. If you can get folks laughing at your target’s expense, you diminish his power. I wanted the country to have a good laugh at Helms’ expense. I wanted his fellow senators to have a little chuckle behind his back. And I wanted Senator Helms to realize that his free ride was up - if he hit us again, we’d hit back." The article was written after the event, I wonder how well thought out some of the nuances were before the event, e.g. the fellow senators having a chuckle behind his back or that power is diminished.

seba_dos1 8y ago

When you'll trace this word back to its origins, this is an amazing hack :) I'm glad that someone thought about posting it here.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Which word?
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Helms.

CapitalistCartr 8y ago

I remember my first friends that posted a sign on their front door requesting people not smoke in their house. Then, I thought it so very bold. I remember when the police thought beating up gays laughable, and my dad sneering, "Queer as a three-dollar bill." Now, I just attended the local Pride parade and the police were having a great time as participants. We can look in the past at these changes, but people had to live their whole lives like that. Not really citizens, not really people. Anita Bryant was actually popular in my State.

mherdeg 8y ago
Any guesses on what's next? What do you suppose, in retrospect 30 years from now, will seem crazy that we all did?
- steve_g 8y ago
  I wonder what future generations will _despise_ us for. For which behaviors or beliefs will they take down our statues, remove our portraits from display, take our names off memorials, and revile us as evil?
  - aplummer 8y ago
    Maybe how we treat refugees, or watch Syrians being bombed on the news before carrying on with our day.
  - ShabbosGoy 8y ago
    Nothing, because after a certain point, only artificial and semi-synthetic life will exist.
  - girvo 8y ago
    For Australia (where I'm from), it's certain to be our treatment of asylum seekers arriving via boats. It's absolutely disgusting how our government and a lot of society want to treat them.
  - winter_blue 8y ago

olivermarks 8y ago

It's easy to forget, because of the light hearted tone of the essay, that this was actually an incredibly brave thing to do at that time.

kalleboo 8y ago
Yeah it could have easily gone horribly wrong. But I was still surprised by how lightly the police took it and how easily they got off (a parking ticket). It feels like if the same thing happened with the SWAT-and-terrorism-horny law enforcement we have today, they would be locked up under some vague national security charge and not just be allowed to drive off.
georgeecollins 8y ago
But I imagine that in the moment of bravery this person had a light heart. Courage is freeing.

poster123 8y ago

From the article: 'He once said, referring to homosexuals, “it’s their deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct that is responsible for the disease.”' The sexual practices of male homosexuals are the reason they have a much higher prevalence of AIDS. If we can discourage cigarette smoking because it causes lung cancer, why can't we discourage the behaviors that spread AIDS?

patrickg_zill 8y ago
It's not a point that can be addressed honestly. Expect to be down voted massively...
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Honestly, "safer sex" campaigns have been a success, while telling people "anal sex is bad so don't do it" hasn't been. Also, demonizing gay men over anal sex has been successful for centuries, even though lots of heterosexuals also engage in it. That's what comes to my my mind when you mention honesty.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wolfgang42 8y ago
You can discourage the behaviors (or better, encourage safer ones), and this is a very good idea. However, per the article, Senator Helms was blaming and reviling the people involved (“There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy”) and actively discouraging any attempts to fund prevention measures which would reduce the spread of the disease. This is precisely the opposite of your suggestion, but the way you have phrased your commment suggests that you are condoning his behaviour. I guess that this (and not the other commenter's claim that your point “[cannot] be addressed honestly”) is why you are being downvoted.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dang 8y ago

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>Besides opening the rented ladder in the motel parking lot, we never did an actual walk-through as practice. Impressive.