Philomena
Director: Stephen Frears
Writers: Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope. Based on the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith
Cast: Judi Dench, Steve Coogan, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Mare Winningham, Barbara Jefford, Peter Hermann, Sean Mahon
Overview
Thanks to astounding performance by Judi Dench, Philomena manages to present one of the most complex screen protagonists to arrive in theaters in recent memory. Loosely based upon the non-fiction account related in The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by Martin Sixsmith, Philomena tells the story of a woman searching for the child that was forcibly taken from her when she had it out of wedlock.
Synopsis
After having been fired from his gig as a government advisor, journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) finds himself at loose ends. When he is first approached with the story of Philomena Lee (Judi Dench), he is reluctant to pursue it due to his snobbish attitude towards "human interest" stories. However, he does meet with her and learns more of her story. Philomena Lee was a young mother, who gave birth in a Catholic convent in the 1960's after a sexual encounter at a fair. In order to pay for having the child, Philomena worked for the convent for four years, but the convent sold the boy to American couple. When Philomena and Martin investigate, they find that all records of the adoption were burned and current leaders of the convent uncooperative. Following a lead, the pair travel to America, where they discover that Philomenas' child had his name changed to Michael and after growing up, had become a top ranked member of the Republican Party before passing away from AIDS in the nineties.
The Queering
Shaming is a powerful way to make people conform to excpected norms and nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to the issue of human sexuality. At it's heart, this is a film about the power of shame and the ability to overcome it. Philomena Lee was shamed about a sexual encounter she had as a teenager and then shamed into keeping quiet when she was forced to give up her kid for adoption. Michael, her son, was also shamed into the closet about his sexual orientation while he worked his way up the ladder within the Republican party. Martin Sixsmith points these issues out to Philomena Lee when the two travel to the U.S. while looking for her son. Of course Lee surprises him by showing a great amount of forthrightness when it comes to sexuality in general.
Much of the humor in the film is derived from the interaction between Lee, who reads romance novels and the more cynical Sixsmith, who finds her naïve. One extended sequence has her describing the plot of a trite romance novel while he looks like he wishes he could anyplace else. However, the most interesting parts of the movie are the philosophical debates that come up between the two. Given that these debates are clearly influenced by each characters' life experience, they are more interesting than your typical dry philosophical debates about "Is there a God?" or "If there is a God, why would he allow suffering to exist?" As an atheist, Sixsmith has no issue with criticizing the Catholic nuns who kept Lee and Michael from reconnecting before the latter died. Surprisingly, Lee remains a devoted Catholic to the very end, even after it is revealed that the nuns kept Michael from reconnecting with her when he traveled to the orphanage to find her.
As for Michael Hess, I found myself wondering what life would be like for a man who chose to work for the Republican Party, rising all the way up to become Chief Legal Counsel of the Republican National Committee. What does it take to work within a group that actively hates you? What did Hess think of Reagans' long public silence on the issue? Was the fact that when he traveled to the Ireland his face already was showing Kaposi's sarcoma affect how cooperative the nuns were?
Ultimately, the strength of Philomena lies in it's ability to be emotionally affecting without resorting to cheap melodrama. The performances drive the movie, along with the smart script and complex characters. A little philosophy on the side helps things immeasurably as well.
Recommendation
Philomena is just about worth the amount of effort one would use to track down a lost relative in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label AIDS/HIV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS/HIV. Show all posts
May 31, 2014
October 30, 2012
Queer Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge
Director: Jack Sholder
Writer: David Chaskin, Wes Craven
Cast: Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, Hope Lange, Marshall Bell, Robert Englund
Overview
A misbegotten sequel, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge not only fails to be as good as the original, it's an awful and amazingly homophobic film to boot.
Synopsis
Freddy Kruger (Robert Englund) is back and this time he is no longer content to simply invade peoples dreams, he wants to recruit a someone in the real world to continue his evil work. That someone turns out to be teenager Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) who is struggling to adapt to a new neighborhood. When Jesse starts having nightmares and acting strangely, his parents think he is on drugs, but they have no idea for the nightmare that is in store for their boy.
The Queering
The original A Nightmare on Elm Street managed to effectively blur the lines between reality and waking nightmare. A Nightmare on Elm Street is an entirely pedestrian effort that I don't even think was trying to capture the nightmarish qualities of the original. I am being kind when I call sequel is a pale imitation of its predecessor. In the original, Freddy Kruger haunted peoples' nightmares. Here Freddy is going for the more prosaic, and less interesting path of simply taking over a surrogate in this world and having him do the dirty work. Boooooring...
There is however both a queer subtext and a queer text, neither or which lead to anyplace good or interesting. The explicitely gay character, the sadistic Coach Schneider, is the first to die horribly. The other, the films protagonist, Jesse, is coded, but in a rather obvious way. As I talked about in my review of the original, I wondered about the connection between the AIDS crises and the popularity of slasher films. Here, that connection is affirmed by having Jesse waking up with night sweats in imitation of one of the AIDS/HIV diseases better known symptoms.
In addition to waking up with night sweats, Jesse also displays a lack of interest in having sex with his girlfriend, ends up in a gay bar, and in one critical scene rejects the advances of his girlfriend to go hang out with a guy. However, Jesse being coded gay puts a disturbing twist on the ending. If we read Jesse as struggling with his sexuality, and I'm pretty sure the filmmakers intend for him to be read this way, then the climax of the film becomes about the superiority of heterosexuality triumphing over the disease of queerness.
Furthermore, due to Freddy's attempts to "recruit" Jesse the filmmakers end up invoking some of the most disturbingly false attacks on gay men. While Freddy in the first film simply served as a warning against promiscuous sex, here he becomes a sexual predator of a much different nature. Not only is Freddy attempting to recruit a teenager to the gay lifestyle, but his newly established queer nature puts an entirely different spin on the fact that he was an established child murderer in the first film. For no child murderer is just a murderer in Hollywood, there is almost always the implication of sexual violence. This too is alluded to by Freddy's disturbing tendency of leaping onto his victims as if preparing to commit sexual violence.
What I am getting at, is that in A Nightmare in Elm Street 2 Freddy Kruger has been sub-textually reinvented as a gay pedophile, thereby creating a film with more homophobic overtones than Cruising.
That is an accomplishment all filmmakers should have nightmares about even the possibility of achieving.
Recommendation
It is a nightmarish thought that a film this bad and homophobic was able to get made. No matter what street one lives on, A Nightmare on Elm Street is to be avoided.
The Rating
ZERO out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Jack Sholder
Writer: David Chaskin, Wes Craven
Cast: Mark Patton, Kim Myers, Robert Rusler, Clu Gulager, Hope Lange, Marshall Bell, Robert Englund
Overview
A misbegotten sequel, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge not only fails to be as good as the original, it's an awful and amazingly homophobic film to boot.
Synopsis
Freddy Kruger (Robert Englund) is back and this time he is no longer content to simply invade peoples dreams, he wants to recruit a someone in the real world to continue his evil work. That someone turns out to be teenager Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton) who is struggling to adapt to a new neighborhood. When Jesse starts having nightmares and acting strangely, his parents think he is on drugs, but they have no idea for the nightmare that is in store for their boy.
The Queering
The original A Nightmare on Elm Street managed to effectively blur the lines between reality and waking nightmare. A Nightmare on Elm Street is an entirely pedestrian effort that I don't even think was trying to capture the nightmarish qualities of the original. I am being kind when I call sequel is a pale imitation of its predecessor. In the original, Freddy Kruger haunted peoples' nightmares. Here Freddy is going for the more prosaic, and less interesting path of simply taking over a surrogate in this world and having him do the dirty work. Boooooring...
There is however both a queer subtext and a queer text, neither or which lead to anyplace good or interesting. The explicitely gay character, the sadistic Coach Schneider, is the first to die horribly. The other, the films protagonist, Jesse, is coded, but in a rather obvious way. As I talked about in my review of the original, I wondered about the connection between the AIDS crises and the popularity of slasher films. Here, that connection is affirmed by having Jesse waking up with night sweats in imitation of one of the AIDS/HIV diseases better known symptoms.
In addition to waking up with night sweats, Jesse also displays a lack of interest in having sex with his girlfriend, ends up in a gay bar, and in one critical scene rejects the advances of his girlfriend to go hang out with a guy. However, Jesse being coded gay puts a disturbing twist on the ending. If we read Jesse as struggling with his sexuality, and I'm pretty sure the filmmakers intend for him to be read this way, then the climax of the film becomes about the superiority of heterosexuality triumphing over the disease of queerness.
Furthermore, due to Freddy's attempts to "recruit" Jesse the filmmakers end up invoking some of the most disturbingly false attacks on gay men. While Freddy in the first film simply served as a warning against promiscuous sex, here he becomes a sexual predator of a much different nature. Not only is Freddy attempting to recruit a teenager to the gay lifestyle, but his newly established queer nature puts an entirely different spin on the fact that he was an established child murderer in the first film. For no child murderer is just a murderer in Hollywood, there is almost always the implication of sexual violence. This too is alluded to by Freddy's disturbing tendency of leaping onto his victims as if preparing to commit sexual violence.
What I am getting at, is that in A Nightmare in Elm Street 2 Freddy Kruger has been sub-textually reinvented as a gay pedophile, thereby creating a film with more homophobic overtones than Cruising.
That is an accomplishment all filmmakers should have nightmares about even the possibility of achieving.
Recommendation
It is a nightmarish thought that a film this bad and homophobic was able to get made. No matter what street one lives on, A Nightmare on Elm Street is to be avoided.
The Rating
ZERO out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Classic Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Director: Wes Craven
Writer: Wes Craven
Cast: Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, Robert Englund, John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Charles Fleischer
Overview
An effective examination of the lines separating reality from dreams and dreams from nightmares, A Nightmare on Elm Street remains one of the best of the 1980's era slasher flicks. Overall this is well made flick with plenty of memorable and gruesome imagery designed to cause nightmares whether or not one is awake or asleep.
Synopsis
When teenager Tina (Amanda Wyss) is brutally murdered, the police finger her boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) as the main suspect. But Tina's friend, Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) suspects that Rod is innocent for both she and Tina had been sharing similar dreams of a man with knives for fingers who has been haunting their sleep. When Nancy investigates, she begins to realize that this man is Freddy Kruger, a child murderer who suffered a horrific fate after he was acquitted of his crimes in a court of law.
The Queering
The 1980's was the era of the slasher films (started in 1978 by Halloween) and like it's sibling series, A Nightmare on Elm Street started out on a high note before quickly descending into dreck. Well, actually, I have not seen that many of the sequels of either series, but between what I have heard from others and having viewed A Nightmare on Elm Stree 2: Freddy's Revenge, I am not going to be running out to view the subsequent films of either series. Ultimately, both series would be dragged out unnecessarily, thereby undermining the reputation of the originals.
As for A Nightmare on Elm Street itself, Wes Craven effectively toes the line between harsh reality and waking nightmare. The murders are presented in such a way, that the refrain of "don't fall asleep" will not be difficult for many of the more sensitive members of the audience. The first kill is particularly brutal with the victim being dragged up a wall and across the ceiling by invisible forces. Later, another character meets an equally gruesome fate that a responding paramedic talks about "needing a mop, not a body bag". Obviously, this is not a film for the faint of heart or the overly sensitive.
One of the cardinal rules of slasher films is that those who have sex are the first to die. A Nightmare on Elm Street follows this rule, but not strictly. Virginity it turns out is no guarantee of survival here, the characters who have sex simply get offed sooner rather than later.
However, the theme of burgeoning teenage sexuality begetting monsters that this pattern eludes to, is hammered home in a shot of Freddy's hand coming up from between Nancy's legs when she is taking a bath. In a way almost, while aimed at teenagers, slasher flicks appear to be mostly a reflection of parental anxieties about the dangers of adolescence. One wonders how much of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's helped propel the popularity of the slasher films or it was mere coincidence that this genre simply ended up paralleling the reality of sex that could literally kill people by coincidence. Granted, the idea of killing the sexually promiscuous started in 1978 by Halloween well before AIDS was pushed to the forefront of the national consciousness. What I want to know, is if there had been no AIDS crises, would the cheesiness of the genre have caused slasher films to die out earlier?
Recommendation
A Nightmare on Elm Street is worth seeking out for anyone, whether they live on Elm Street or not.
The Rating
***1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Wes Craven
Writer: Wes Craven
Cast: Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, Robert Englund, John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Charles Fleischer
Overview
An effective examination of the lines separating reality from dreams and dreams from nightmares, A Nightmare on Elm Street remains one of the best of the 1980's era slasher flicks. Overall this is well made flick with plenty of memorable and gruesome imagery designed to cause nightmares whether or not one is awake or asleep.
Synopsis
When teenager Tina (Amanda Wyss) is brutally murdered, the police finger her boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) as the main suspect. But Tina's friend, Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) suspects that Rod is innocent for both she and Tina had been sharing similar dreams of a man with knives for fingers who has been haunting their sleep. When Nancy investigates, she begins to realize that this man is Freddy Kruger, a child murderer who suffered a horrific fate after he was acquitted of his crimes in a court of law.
The Queering
The 1980's was the era of the slasher films (started in 1978 by Halloween) and like it's sibling series, A Nightmare on Elm Street started out on a high note before quickly descending into dreck. Well, actually, I have not seen that many of the sequels of either series, but between what I have heard from others and having viewed A Nightmare on Elm Stree 2: Freddy's Revenge, I am not going to be running out to view the subsequent films of either series. Ultimately, both series would be dragged out unnecessarily, thereby undermining the reputation of the originals.
As for A Nightmare on Elm Street itself, Wes Craven effectively toes the line between harsh reality and waking nightmare. The murders are presented in such a way, that the refrain of "don't fall asleep" will not be difficult for many of the more sensitive members of the audience. The first kill is particularly brutal with the victim being dragged up a wall and across the ceiling by invisible forces. Later, another character meets an equally gruesome fate that a responding paramedic talks about "needing a mop, not a body bag". Obviously, this is not a film for the faint of heart or the overly sensitive.
One of the cardinal rules of slasher films is that those who have sex are the first to die. A Nightmare on Elm Street follows this rule, but not strictly. Virginity it turns out is no guarantee of survival here, the characters who have sex simply get offed sooner rather than later.
However, the theme of burgeoning teenage sexuality begetting monsters that this pattern eludes to, is hammered home in a shot of Freddy's hand coming up from between Nancy's legs when she is taking a bath. In a way almost, while aimed at teenagers, slasher flicks appear to be mostly a reflection of parental anxieties about the dangers of adolescence. One wonders how much of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's helped propel the popularity of the slasher films or it was mere coincidence that this genre simply ended up paralleling the reality of sex that could literally kill people by coincidence. Granted, the idea of killing the sexually promiscuous started in 1978 by Halloween well before AIDS was pushed to the forefront of the national consciousness. What I want to know, is if there had been no AIDS crises, would the cheesiness of the genre have caused slasher films to die out earlier?
Recommendation
A Nightmare on Elm Street is worth seeking out for anyone, whether they live on Elm Street or not.
The Rating
***1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
December 14, 2011
Otsego County Pflag: Positive Connections in Need of Help
Otsego County Pflag: Positive Connections in Need of Help: Hello everyone, I received the following from Bill Phar, the head of Positive Connections. I hope people can do whatever they can to help:...
June 6, 2011
Queer Review: Philadelphia (1993)
Philadelphia
Director: Jonathan Demme
Writer: Ron Nyswaner
Cast: Tom Hanks, Antonio Banderas, Denzel Washington, Jason Robards
Overview
Philadelphia was director Jonathan Demme's penance after he was criticized for the homophobic overtones in his Oscar winning Silence of the Lambs. A story of the AIDS crisis, Philadelphia at least managed to convey the anxieties and fears that came with HIV epidemic, while containing a strong message against homophobia. The only movie that I know that did this better, was the HBO miniseries Angels in America.
Synopsis
When Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) was discovered to have AIDS, he was shortly thereafter fired by his homophobic law firm, even though he had just been promoted to a senior partner. Unfortunately, after being turned down by every other lawyer he had approached, Beckett's only recourse was to hire homophobic attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) in order to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.
The Queering
While Philadelphia is ostensibly about a gay man with HIV/AIDS, the most interesting thematic element is the way homophobia is contrasted with racism. This is underscored, not only by having Beckett being defended by a black lawyer, but during a key scene where Becket is asked repeatedly by a librarian if he would prefer a private study room. During this scene, I could not help but think about that dark part of history when Jimmy Crow dictated that blacks could only swim in public pools on the day before those pools were to be cleaned.
The biggest problem with Philadelphia is the pacing. The opening act is effective in setting up the scenario, but the middle section gets bogged down with too many courtroom scenes, which causes proceedings to drag a bit. That is not to say that there are not many more effective elements, but if the film had trimmed 15-20 minutes, then it would have made for a much better movie experience.
The greatest pleasure comes from watching Denzel Washington's homophobic lawyer gradually turn into someone capable of empathizing with gay people. Tom Hanks is good, as is Antonio Banderas as Beckett's lover, but Washington is the one who has the greatest challenge.
Another thing I appreciated, was how there were no big melodramatic scenes, instead events and themes are developed and explored gradually throughout the movie. Too often courtroom dramas and movies focused on characters dying of terminal illnesses resort to cheap theatrics and over the top melodrama to make their points. Thankfully, Philadelphia avoids all that nonsense and is all the better for it.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended for anyone who can enjoy a solid, well made drama.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Jonathan Demme
Writer: Ron Nyswaner
Cast: Tom Hanks, Antonio Banderas, Denzel Washington, Jason Robards
Overview
Philadelphia was director Jonathan Demme's penance after he was criticized for the homophobic overtones in his Oscar winning Silence of the Lambs. A story of the AIDS crisis, Philadelphia at least managed to convey the anxieties and fears that came with HIV epidemic, while containing a strong message against homophobia. The only movie that I know that did this better, was the HBO miniseries Angels in America.
Synopsis
When Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) was discovered to have AIDS, he was shortly thereafter fired by his homophobic law firm, even though he had just been promoted to a senior partner. Unfortunately, after being turned down by every other lawyer he had approached, Beckett's only recourse was to hire homophobic attorney Joe Miller (Denzel Washington) in order to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.
The Queering
While Philadelphia is ostensibly about a gay man with HIV/AIDS, the most interesting thematic element is the way homophobia is contrasted with racism. This is underscored, not only by having Beckett being defended by a black lawyer, but during a key scene where Becket is asked repeatedly by a librarian if he would prefer a private study room. During this scene, I could not help but think about that dark part of history when Jimmy Crow dictated that blacks could only swim in public pools on the day before those pools were to be cleaned.
The biggest problem with Philadelphia is the pacing. The opening act is effective in setting up the scenario, but the middle section gets bogged down with too many courtroom scenes, which causes proceedings to drag a bit. That is not to say that there are not many more effective elements, but if the film had trimmed 15-20 minutes, then it would have made for a much better movie experience.
The greatest pleasure comes from watching Denzel Washington's homophobic lawyer gradually turn into someone capable of empathizing with gay people. Tom Hanks is good, as is Antonio Banderas as Beckett's lover, but Washington is the one who has the greatest challenge.
Another thing I appreciated, was how there were no big melodramatic scenes, instead events and themes are developed and explored gradually throughout the movie. Too often courtroom dramas and movies focused on characters dying of terminal illnesses resort to cheap theatrics and over the top melodrama to make their points. Thankfully, Philadelphia avoids all that nonsense and is all the better for it.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended for anyone who can enjoy a solid, well made drama.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
November 9, 2010
Queer Issue: The Stigma of HIV
World AIDS Day is December first and local groups that I'm involved with are currently in the process of planning events. So I thought I would take some time to offer some thoughts on the issue of HIV and AIDs.
By now most people should know that HIV is a Sexually Transmitted Disease that causes AIDS. People who engage in risky behaviors should be tested for HIV on regular basis. Common sense, right?
As I view leaders as the ones who should be setting a good example, when I was asked at a recent doctors visit if I would like to be tested for HIV (and with the approach of World AIDS Day on my mind) I naturally answered "yes". This way - I thought at least - I could tell people that I had been tested, and yes, it is a good thing!
This of course meant that I had to spend the next few minutes trying (awkwardly) to act like "yes, I do have unprotected sex with multiple partners and therefore my risky behavior is a very good reason for me to be tested for HIV."
It also meant getting a lecture on the dangers of having unprotected sex with multiple partners from my doctor and lab orders for pretty much every other STD that can be tested for. At least now, I'll have peace of mind... not that I was worried or anything.
Also, in terms of leadership theory, misleading your doctor is generally a bad idea and people really should be doing as I say (do not mislead medical professionals) not as I did. Seriously!
In any event, this also got me thinking about the stigma and prejudices that still exist against those infected with HIV. One of the most common reasons I've seen used to argue for "homosexuality" as being an immoral sin (other than quoting biblical texts) is the rate of incidence of HIV infections among Men who have sex with Men. Which is a rather terrible reason when one thinks about it.
Here's why. While HIV is a virus that is most readily spread through unprotected sex, it is not the only way. Granted, certain activities are more likely to spread HIV then others. Populations that engage in those activities typically have higher incidence rates of infection. Anal sex has the greatest chance of infection, but vaginal intercourse can also lead to an infection, among other possibilities, such as sharing dirty needles.
Furthermore, according to the CDC website "...even though more men than women have HIV, women are catching up. In fact, if new HIV infections continue at their current rate worldwide, women with HIV may soon outnumber men with HIV." If HIV really were God's wrath against the "homosexual" lifestyle, you would think he would pick a more discriminating method.
Logically, to me at least, it makes no sense to judge an individual who has HIV then it does someone with the flu. Would we ridicule someone with skin cancer for not wearing proper sunscreen? A disease is a disease. Some are more deadly, spread easier and through different means, and kill more efficiently. But still, at the end of the day, whoever gets "it" is not "immoral" or suffering punishment under the whims of a omnipotent deity.
By now most people should know that HIV is a Sexually Transmitted Disease that causes AIDS. People who engage in risky behaviors should be tested for HIV on regular basis. Common sense, right?
As I view leaders as the ones who should be setting a good example, when I was asked at a recent doctors visit if I would like to be tested for HIV (and with the approach of World AIDS Day on my mind) I naturally answered "yes". This way - I thought at least - I could tell people that I had been tested, and yes, it is a good thing!
This of course meant that I had to spend the next few minutes trying (awkwardly) to act like "yes, I do have unprotected sex with multiple partners and therefore my risky behavior is a very good reason for me to be tested for HIV."
It also meant getting a lecture on the dangers of having unprotected sex with multiple partners from my doctor and lab orders for pretty much every other STD that can be tested for. At least now, I'll have peace of mind... not that I was worried or anything.
Also, in terms of leadership theory, misleading your doctor is generally a bad idea and people really should be doing as I say (do not mislead medical professionals) not as I did. Seriously!
In any event, this also got me thinking about the stigma and prejudices that still exist against those infected with HIV. One of the most common reasons I've seen used to argue for "homosexuality" as being an immoral sin (other than quoting biblical texts) is the rate of incidence of HIV infections among Men who have sex with Men. Which is a rather terrible reason when one thinks about it.
Here's why. While HIV is a virus that is most readily spread through unprotected sex, it is not the only way. Granted, certain activities are more likely to spread HIV then others. Populations that engage in those activities typically have higher incidence rates of infection. Anal sex has the greatest chance of infection, but vaginal intercourse can also lead to an infection, among other possibilities, such as sharing dirty needles.
Furthermore, according to the CDC website "...even though more men than women have HIV, women are catching up. In fact, if new HIV infections continue at their current rate worldwide, women with HIV may soon outnumber men with HIV." If HIV really were God's wrath against the "homosexual" lifestyle, you would think he would pick a more discriminating method.
Logically, to me at least, it makes no sense to judge an individual who has HIV then it does someone with the flu. Would we ridicule someone with skin cancer for not wearing proper sunscreen? A disease is a disease. Some are more deadly, spread easier and through different means, and kill more efficiently. But still, at the end of the day, whoever gets "it" is not "immoral" or suffering punishment under the whims of a omnipotent deity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)